The Assembly met at 10.30am (Mr Speaker in the Chair).
Members observed two minutes’ silence.

Assembly Business: Use of Assembly E-Mail / Points of Order

Mr Speaker: Dr Paisley raised with me the use by a Member’s researcher of the Assembly e-mail address as a point of contact in respect of an article that the researcher had written, and which was published in ‘The IrishTimes’ on 7December. The researcher is a Mr Steven King. The matter relates to a member of staff, not a Member of the House, so it is for the Assembly Secretariat to deal with it. I have put it in the hands of the Head of Administration for his attention.
I can tell the House that the Head of Administration has ruled that Assembly e-mail accounts are provided for staff use on Assembly business only and that their private or commercial use is prohibited. The Head of Administration is writing to the Member’s researcher to remind him of the rules governing the provision and use of Assembly services and to inform him that any further breach of these rules will result in the withdrawal of Assembly services.
I have to advise the House that the Second Reading of the Electronic Communications Bill on the Order Paper for today has been withdrawn by the relevant Ministers.

Rev Dr Ian Paisley: On a point of order, MrSpeaker. I want to thank you for your ruling. I am glad that this matter is being dealt with as you have described.

Mr Francie Molloy: A Cheann Comhairle, go raibh maith agat. With regard to the issue of my speaking as Committee Chairperson yesterday, the point was raised by MrMcGrady that I had extended that by actually making a political speech. It is quite clear from Hansard that I made a differential between speaking as a Committee Chairperson and speaking as a party member. I want to draw that to the attention of the House.

Rev Dr Ian Paisley: Further to that point of order, MrSpeaker. Hansard reports that I spoke as the Committee Chairperson. I was not called as the Chairperson, and I made it clear to the Speaker that I was speaking in my own capacity.

Mr Eddie McGrady: On a further point of order, MrSpeaker. Is it possible for a Member who is a Chairperson of a Committee to be called in privilege and precedence as a Chairperson of a Committee and then use that calling as Chairperson to make a personal political speech?

Mr Speaker: May I refer all the Members to the comments I made yesterday, which are recorded in Hansard, about the calling of Members as office holders in the Assembly. I pointed out that on some occasions Members who were office holders were not called as such because they had said that they did not want to speak in their office. There is a dilemma for those Members who are office holders who wish to make reference to matters which are the subject of their office but also want to make reference to other matters, as under Standing Orders they may only be called once in the course of any debate. They could not be called once as a Chairperson or Deputy Chairperson and then subsequently called again.
I hesitate to make an immediate ruling on that matter because it is a difficult one and I wish to give it further consideration. I will return to the matter when I have considered it and consulted with the Business Committee.

Rev Dr Ian Paisley: Further to that point of order, MrSpeaker. I made it clear to the Deputy Speaker that I did not want to be called as Chairperson of the Agriculture Committee simply because political points had been made against my party and, as its leader, I wanted to answer them. I did not take any precedence whatsoever — I was well down the list. Therefore, MrMcGrady can go home and sleep well, knowing that everything was done decently and in order.

Mr Speaker: I can confirm that DrPaisley was not called in his capacity as Chairperson of the Agriculture Committee and did not have precedence either in the Assembly or, I note, even in the speaking order of his own party.

Languages: North/South Ministerial Council Sectoral Meeting

Mr Speaker: I have received notice from the Minister of Culture, Arts and Leisure that he wishes to make a statement on the North/South Ministerial Council (NSMC) languages meeting which was held on 5December2000.

Mr Michael McGimpsey: I wish to report to the Assembly on the second meeting of the NSMC in language sectoral format on Tuesday 5December2000 in the National Art Gallery, Dublin.
Following nomination by the First Minister and the Deputy First Minister, DrFarren and I attended the meeting. The Irish Government was represented by MrEamonÓCuív TD, Minister of State. This report has been approved by DrFarren and is also made on his behalf.
The meeting opened with a progress report by the joint chairperson of the Language Body, Maighréad Uí Mhairtín, on the activities of the body and by the interim chief executive of Foras na Gaeilge (The Irish Language Agency), MrMicheálÓGruagáin, and the interim chief executive of Tha Boord o Ulster-Scotch (The Ulster-Scots Agency), MrJohnHegarty.
(Mr Deputy Speaker [Mr McClelland] in the Chair)
The Council considered and approved an interim programme of activities for Foras na Gaeilge for 2001, including interim staffing arrangements to manage that programme. The programme of activities is divided into four main sectors: the development of a corporate plan and detailed organisational structure for Foras na Gaeilge, subject to the approval of the NSMC; allocation of more than IR£7 million to Irish language organisations and projects, including funding of an estimated IR£750,000 to an new pre-school organisation, and an estimated IR£400,000 for Irish language newspapers and journals; projects and partnerships run by Foras, including book publishing and distribution; and administration and personnel, including an increase in staff numbers from 40 to 65 and the establishment of a permanent office in Belfast.
The Council also noted a progress report on Foras na Gaeilge’s corporate plan. The Council approved, in principle, funding of IR£3·1 million — that is £2·37 million sterling — over a five-year period for a modern, high-quality English-Irish dictionary which would supersede the current major English-Irish dictionary edited by Tomás De Bhaldraithe, which was first published in 1959. The new authoritative dictionary will have 50,000 key words and 250,000 sample sentences.
The Council also agreed, in principle, a three-year action plan to ensure that there is an adequate provision of Irish language textbooks and resources for primary and post-primary schools and colleges. The plan would include ensuring that teachers are released from their teaching duties to produce the resources and that they would receive training to do so. The material would be made available in printed and electronic formats.
The Council considered and approved the body of the corporate plan of Tha Boord o Ulster-Scotch. The plan supported four major themes at a total cost of £1·45 million. They are: supporting Ulster-Scots as a living language and promoting its use and development; acting as a key contributor to the development of Ulster-Scots culture; establishing partnerships with the education and community sectors to promote the study of the Ulster-Scots language, culture and history; and developing the public’s understanding of the Ulster-Scots language and culture.
The Council considered a request by the chairperson of Tha Boord o Ulster-Scotch for assistance to carry out his duties and agreed a means by which this could be done. The Council also noted the resignation from Foras na Gaeilge of Cllr Cionnaith Ó Súileabháin and appointed Gearóid Ó hEara as his replacement.
The Council considered the draft equality schemes for Tha Boord o Ulster-Scotch and Foras na Gaeilge. It noted both drafts and advised that they should be amalgamated into one scheme for the North/South Language Body. It acknowledged that further work would be required to agree the final format of the draft, taking account of the need for each agency, in its particular context, to be able to consult fully and comprehensively. The final draft equality scheme for the North/South Language Body will be submitted to NSMC for approval before public consultation.
The Council considered the recommendation of a selection panel on the appointment of a chief executive to the Special EU Programmes Body. The name of the candidate put forward by the selection panel was accepted by the Council and a further announcement will be made in due course following acceptance of the appointment. The Council agreed to meet again in this sectoral format in Northern Ireland in February/March 2001.

Mr Eamonn ONeill: I welcome the Minister’s statement and pay tribute to him and his Colleagues for the work they have been doing. This issue is at an important stage, and the Committee will be interested in examining it. Will the Minister provide us with the details of the programme of activities in the Gaelic section and of the corporate plan for the Ulster-Scots section?
I welcome the work that has been carried out on the dictionary, which is currently in great demand. Was there any discussion about making it available in disc form? That has become an increasingly important format, both in language teaching and in the development of the language.

Mr Michael McGimpsey: Both agencies — Foras na Gaeilge and Tha Boord o Ulster Scotch — have undertaken work on producing dictionaries in Ulster-Scots, for the first time, and an updated Irish one. That is an important piece of work for both agencies. There is no reason why the Ulster-Scots Agency’s corporate plan cannot be given to the Committee. I will also undertake to provide it with a programme of activities for Foras.

Ms Mary Nelis: Go raibh maith agat, a LeasCheann Comhairle. This is a very welcome progress report. I welcome the appointment of Gearóid Ó hEara, whom I know personally and who will be an excellent replacement for Cionnaith Ó Súileabháin. In particular, I welcome the fact that resources will be directed to teaching duties, that teachers will be able to be released from their duties so as to produce these resources, that they will receive the necessary training and that material will be available in both printed and electronic form. Nollaig shona dó.

Mr Michael McGimpsey: Important work is under way as far as the North/South Language Body and the two agencies are concerned. The level of co-operation that exists between the two agencies is very helpful. It is a very welcome move.

Dr Ian Adamson: I thank the Minister for his fine work in providing a more culturally supportive environment in core Ulster-Scots areas, including specific recognition of the Ulster-Scots language. I would like him to take note of several other recommendations.
He could mebbe tak a luik at the wey Inglish bes lairnt in skuils for ti gie wecht til the mukkil Ulster-Scotch cums in on the local wey o tawkin. He could lay oot whit wey the Ulster-Scotch leid micht coud be lairnt up ti GCSE an GCE A Heicht. Mairatower, he coud: lay oot plenishin for the fittin leir o yins cummin oot o universitie ti be dominies; ettil an pit thegither dedicate skreivins for the lairnin; an lay oot whit thai coud dae wi for haein Ulster-Scotch lairnin for collegianers.
First, a review of how English is taught in schools to take account of the heavy influence of Ulster-Scots on local speech. Secondly, provision for the study of the Ulster-Scots language to GCSE and GCE A-level. Thirdly, provision for appropriate teacher training. Fourthly, a drive to produce dedicated educational support materials. Fifthly, provision for Ulster-Scots studies in tertiary education.
A’m pittin doun aw thir avisements ti ettil at makkin siccar o jonik daeins an aiven-haunditness for the leid an fowgate heirskip o the haill fek o residenters.
The objective of each of these recommendations is to promote, on a basis of equality and fairness, the linguistic and cultural heritage of an entire community.

Mr Michael McGimpsey: I agree with much of what the Member said about our rich and varied indigenous linguistic tradition, not least the tradition of Ulster-Scots. A number of his points were well made, in relation to teaching, studying for GCSE, teacher training, educational support and also availability for study at tertiary level. Tha Boord o Ulster-Scotch is looking at all those areas, and it has a number of exciting plans for the linguistic and cultural development of Ulster-Scots. That is obviously a very rich vein of our shared heritage and tradition. The agency is well aware of those areas, and I am confident that its work will encompass all of them.

Mr David Hilditch: Further to yesterday’s award of £1·2 million to be spent on the language issue, I would be interested to hear the Minister’s views on accountability and reporting. I note the points he made this morning on the proposed corporate plans for both the Irish language and Ulster-Scots, but there is a clear need for full and detailed plans to be made available as soon as possible, giving precise information on the proposed activities of the body and the funding implications.
Looking at the information, I am concerned that once again proposals for the Irish language, including additional jobs and the establishment of a permanent office in Belfast, far outweigh and outstrip the resources being made available for the promotion of Ulster-Scots.
Will the Minister detail what mechanisms or directives are in place to ensure that a full report of the North/South Language Body and its activities for the current year will be presented at the earliest opportunity, given the non-presentation of any previous corporate plan?

Mr Michael McGimpsey: The flow of information is very important, and we are trying to increase this communication through, for example, this statement. Everything is accountable to the North/South Ministerial Council and, therefore, to this Assembly. That is why I have made this statement. There is a clear flow of information from both the North/South Language Body, answerable to the North/South Ministerial Council, and from the two language agencies, which are answerable to the body.
The corporate plan for Tha Boord o Ulster-Scotch is complete in draft form, and the draft corporate plan for Foras na Gaeilge, the Irish language body, will be available early in the new year. Those will come together as part of the plan for the body as a whole. It is also important to reflect that an equality statement is a key part of that organisation, in common with all the other bodies attached to this Assembly and to the settlement. Equality statements have been prepared for both the agencies and, as I said in my statement, are in the course of being amalgamated into one single statement that will govern the work of the North/South Language Body.
Mr Hilditch mentioned the disparity in funding. Under direct rule, Ulster-Scots got £118,000 per year. In the first year of devolution we multiplied that by five, and took it up to £667,000. In the second year we have doubled that to £1·3 million. As a result of devolution, over the past two years we have seen a tenfold increase in funding for Ulster-Scots. We recognise its importance. It was not getting the sort of support and resources that it merited.
As for the number of staff employed, it is wrong to benchmark one language against another. Ulster-Scots is clearly in a more embryonic developmental form. Gaelic is much more mature in its development. As I said this morning, the Irish-English dictionary is being updated. The dictionary currently in use is some 50 years old, and needs to be updated, whereas the Ulster-Scots agency is about to undertake the very first dictionary. That gives an indication of the different levels of development of, and, therefore, the different degrees of resources needed by each language.
Tha Boord o Ulster-Scotch will say that funding is adequate at the moment, and that it has its hands full in relation to work programmes. The Foras na Gaeilge staff is increasing from 40 to its complement of 65. That increase has been slow, because of the concern that the suspension would not be lifted early and the resultant delays in recruiting permanent staff.
Tolerance, respect and understanding of languages, including Irish, Ulster-Scots and ethnic minority languages, are the key policy objectives towards which we are working. Currently, Irish Gaelic has Part III European Charter status; Ulster-Scots has Part II status. The Ulster-Scots agency is confident that the language will achieve Part III within 10 years, and Ulster-Scots can claim to be one of the fastest growing minority or regional language movements in Europe. There is much to be welcomed, not just in the activities of the Boord o Ulster-Scotch, but in the activities of Foras na Gaeilge.

Mr Kieran McCarthy: It is important that the Assembly take steps to support Irish and Ulster-Scots, so long as they are complementary to each other and are not just restricted to one tribe or the other. I look forward to the day when we will hear substantial contributions in Irish from Unionist Members and Ulster-Scots from the Nationalists. We would support that, but not if the language issue is going to be split down the middle by each tribe.
Fewer people are using the languages as first languages; in most cases, they are simply exercising a cultural preference. I welcome the fact that people have that choice.

Mr Edwin Poots: Is it in order for the Member for Strangford to describe constituents in Northern Ireland as tribes?

Mr Donovan McClelland: It is not unparliamentary language.

Mr Kieran McCarthy: Will the Minister tell us what steps — if any — are being taken by the North/South body to promote the provision of services in other important languages, such as Cantonese, Mandarin and Urdu? Does the Minister agree that more people on this island speak those as first languages? Many of those people have difficulty understanding English and miss out on important information and opportunities. Has the Minister any plans to raise those genuine concerns at future North/South Ministerial Council meetings?

Mr Michael McGimpsey: Tolerance, respect and understanding for languages, including Irish, Ulster-Scots and the ethnic minority languages, are overriding principles of the Belfast Agreement. The North/South Language Body comprises two agencies — the Irish language agency and the Ulster-Scots agency. The Irish language agency is Foras na Gaeilge and the Ulster-Scots agency is Tha Boord o Ulster-Scotch, and each of those has a specific remit. I have received no proposal for a third language agency, and I am not sure whether it would be appropriate to consider that now.
There are other methods of funding and supporting ethnic minority languages. I agree with the Member that it is important; there are 8,000 Cantonese speakers in Northern Ireland, which is a sizeable constituency. For many of those people, Cantonese is their first language and English their second. If we are to promote tolerance, respect and understanding, it is important that resources be directed towards, for example, the Chinese Welfare Association, with which I have had some contact. There are mechanisms to provide support, but I do not know whether that support is adequate. The matter does not fall within my remit, but I think that those groups would be the first to agree that there is support available to them.

Mr Eugene McMenamin: I welcome the plan to ensure that there is adequate provision of Irish language textbooks and resources for primary and post-primary schools and colleges. The new dictionary is also welcome. Language is an essential element of our cultural heritage and is part of our sense of identity.
I ask the Minister if Ulster-Scots and Irish can be implemented, sooner rather than later, as part of the curriculum in all primary schools. Will he consider setting up a sub-office in a border region, particularly in the west Tyrone area? I wish him a happy Christmas.

Mr Michael McGimpsey: A Foras na Gaeilge office is being set up in Belfast. Tha Boord o Ulster-Scotch has its headquarters in Belfast, and it is setting up an office in Donegal. Attempting to straddle and to reach the whole constituency is very much part of the agenda.
There is a resource allocation for support at primary- school level. This is not just the Department’s responsibility —the Member is aware that boards of governors are responsible for delivering the curriculum in the classrooms. Their support comes from education and library boards, which, in turn, derive strategy from the Department of Education. It would not be for me — or, indeed, for the language bodies — to determine what happens in the classroom. There is certainly an interest in providing that type of support. I also refer to the answer that I gave to Dr Adamson. I said that both agencies see it as part of their remit to look at how they give support to primary, secondary and tertiary education.

Mr Jim Shannon: I wish to ask the Minister a number of questions and to make a number of points. First of all, I want to express disappointment. I know that the Minister has said that the Ulster-Scots Heritage Council and the language society are happy. I understand that they are far from happy about the funding that has been offered to them. If you look at the overall figures, it is very clear that Ulster-Scots is almost an afterthought. It is a poor relation. To be honest, it is a very, very poor relation when it comes to the funding which has been allocated to the different organizations.
I have no problem with the promotion of the Irish language, as long as it is done to promote the language and not used as a political tool. Perhaps the Minister can reassure us that the promotion of the Irish language will be on that basis and will not be used by political organizations to promote an ethos, culture or political viewpoint which would be alien to a large proportion of the people in the Province. I would like that reassurance first.
The Minister also mentioned staff and locations. We see that the staff in the Belfast office for the Irish language agency will be increased from 40 to 65. He also mentioned that an Ulster-Scots office will be established in Donegal. Can he tell us when that will be established, what the staffing numbers will be, and where the staff will come from? What criteria will be used in choosing the staff of the Ulster-Scots office? Can he also tell us how many staff will be in the Belfast office, and what criteria will be used to select them?
I also have a question about book publishing and distribution. I am a bit disappointed that Ulster-Scots has not been given significant — or, indeed, any — help towards book publishing and distribution. I know that the Minister is aware of the Ulster-Scots books that have been written by a number of enthusiasts who are committed to the Ulster-Scots language, culture and tradition. They have paid for the publications from their own pockets and through private funding. Where is the funding for this?
The Minister also mentioned the English-Irish dictionary that will have 50,000 key words and 250,000 sample sentences. Can the Minister say whether there will be similar help for Ulster-Scots? In the last sentence —

Mr Donovan McClelland: Mr Shannon, I ask you to be a bit more concise when asking your questions. They are quite difficult to follow.

Mr Jim Shannon: On the last page of his statement, at the third paragraph from the end, the Minister states that the final draft equality scheme for the North/South language body will be submitted to the North/South Ministerial Council for approval before public consultation is carried out. Can the Minister confirm once again that the public will be asked for its opinion once the recommendations have been made?
May I also ask the Minister —

Mr Donovan McClelland: Technically, the Minister may answer only one of those questions. You cannot keep adding points.

Mr Jim Shannon: This is my last question. Can the Minister confirm that the Ulster-Scots language, history and cultural tradition will, and can, receive funding so that they can be adequately promoted? Will that commitment be given here today? Unfortunately, we have not had it so far.

Mr Michael McGimpsey: As you said, MrDeputySpeaker, I am only required to answer one of MrShannon’s questions, but I will do my best to answer all of them, not least because it is Christmas.
I have responded to his question about funding on a number of occasions, both here and in writing, but I do not mind answering it again. Twoyears ago, funding for the Ulster-Scots tradition was £118,000. In the first year of devolution, we multiplied that figure by five to bring the total funding up to £667,000. The following year, we doubled it again, so we have now seen a tenfold increase in funding. That is as much, I believe, as the Ulster-Scots movement can handle at the moment. It has a three-year corporate plan to develop this funding. We are not trying to force this mushroom to grow; it is doing so of its own volition. This is not simply about money.
The Ulster-Scots tradition, language, heritage and legacy do not revolve around money. They depend on the dedication and interest of a large number of people in this country — it is wrong to put a price tag on everything. One of the problems which affect our culture, heritage and legacy is that people throw money at them, walk away and forget about them. That is not what this is about.
Mr Shannon said that the Ulster-Scots Agency is not happy — that is news to me. Nobody is content; everybody could spend more money, but it has the support that it needs for the moment. It is, however, a rapidly growing movement, and I am determined that it should get support.
MrShannon asked for assurance that the Irish language would not be used by political organizations. The North/South language body has two agencies, both of which are governed by certain standards. In response to his question about the recruitment of staff, each agency has its own equality scheme. Neither Foras na Gaelige nor Tha Boord o Ulster-Scotch is about politics — they are about promoting tolerance, respect and understanding of the languages. The headquarters for the Ulster-Scots Agency is in Belfast, and there will also be an office in Donegal. Foras Na Gaeilge has a headquarters in Dublin and an office in Belfast. None of this information is new; it is all available in libraries and elsewhere.
The Irish language body, Bord na Gaeilge, was taken over by Foras Na Gaeilge, which took over existing Irish language organisations. There is almost a replication of what was there before, and the Irish language movement is not getting the same level of increases as the Ulster-Scots movement. But this is not a competition; this is not a zero sum game. One culture is not diminished by the promotion of another or vice versa — we are seeking to enrich all cultures. The Ulster-Scots movement, in its corporate plan for the first three years, is intending to recruit 12 staff. We are looking at the budgets as well. That is what is in its corporate plan, and that is what it believes it can handle.
Part of its work is an Ulster-Scots dictionary and another project is an academy of Ulster- Scots, which I understand has been agreed with the University of Ulster. It is also working not just on the regional office in Donegal, but also on new partnerships throughout the academic arena and the community. It is also looking very carefully at east/west links through Scotland, mirroring somewhat the sort of links that it is seeing through the Colm Cille Initiative for the Irish language.
My understanding is that the Ulster-Scots Agency is benefiting from advice from the Irish Language Agency. The agencies do not see themselves in competition, and this agency is taking Ulster-Scots down the same path that the Irish language movement has trod in the past. The Irish language movement is not slow to offer advice. It does not see this as a competition. We are supporting the dictionary and part of its funding.
I totally refute the argument that because they do not get the same amount of money, one is being treated unfairly. The key here is equity of treatment. That is our aim. I have told Mr Shannon that there has been a tenfold increase in the amounts given in the past couple of years. It is wrong to try to force-feed and force growth; this is not about money.
The Ulster-Scots movement is strong and vibrant, and it is growing. Incidentally, it is a movement that Mr Shannon and I are comfortable with because we come from that tradition in Newtownards. He does not have the right or the authority to make the charge that this is all about money. I repeat: this is not about money. This is about equity of treatment, and together with the House and the Executive Committee, I am determined that everybody be treated properly and fairly.

Mr Barry McElduff: Go raibh maith agat, a LeasCheann Comhairle. Cuirim fáilte roimh ráiteas an Aire sa Tionól inniu agus ba mhaith liom buíochas a ghabháil leis dá bharr. Tá mise sásta go bhfuil an Foras Teanga ag dul i neart agus go bhfuil sé de rún aige oifig bhuan a lonnú i mBéal Feirste roimh i bhfad. I want to welcome the statement from the Minister, and I am pleased to observe that Gaelscoil Uí Néill continues to go from strength to strength. The three-year action plan to ensure adequate provision of language textbooks and resources for schools and colleges is extremely important. To date, many schools have been lacking those resources. Given yesterday’s announcement that Gaelscoil Uí Dhochartaigh and Comhairle na Gaelscolaíochta in Coalisland and Strabane respectively have reached grant-aided status, it is clear that increasingly the Irish-medium sector needs to be properly resourced in this way.
I particularly welcome the news of the imminent establishment of the pre-school organization, and I would like some more information on how that may interact with Gaelscoil Uí Dhochartaigh and Comhairle na Gaelscolaíochta. Similarly, I welcome plans to establish a permanent office in Belfast and will be glad to learn where that will be situated and when it will be fully operative. Finally, I just want to wish the Minister Nollaig shona agus Bliain Úr faoi mhaise

Mr Michael McGimpsey: A temporary office is being established at the moment. It will move to permanent offices when premises have been found. I understand that the temporary office will be in Berry Street in Belfast. A permanent place will then be decided upon.
With regard to the pre-school organization, I do not have the information at hand to help the Member in that respect, but I will try to find it for him. If we have it, I will give it to him, and, if we do not, we will tell him where to get it. I assume that the Department of Education or, perhaps, the education and library boards know more about this than I do. Incidentally, discussions are ongoing between officials in my Department and Department of Education officials.
There is a clear interest in Irish-medium sector education and Foras na Gaeilge recognises that. This is why it is updating Irish-language textbooks and dictionaries. Its three-year action plan is not yet available, but Members will have an opportunity to look at it and comment on it early in the new year. Foras na Gaeilge and Tha Boord o Ulster-Scotch recognise the interest that schools have and the need to promote educational texts and dictionaries.

Mr Edwin Poots: First, can the Minister tell the House what party and what council Mr Cionnaith Ó Súilleabháin represents? I know what his replacement represents, but I am not sure if Mr Ó Súilleabháin represents Istanbul city council. Perhaps the Minister can inform us.
As for the £7 million allocation, can the Minister tell us how much of that comes from the Northern Ireland Budget? Does he agree that, given the constraints on library spending, an excessive amount of money is being spent on the Irish language when towns like my own, Lisburn, do not have a decent library that is open and available to everybody?

Mr Michael McGimpsey: I do not know which council Cionnaith O Súilleabháin represents. He was appointed to the board of Foras na Gaeilge, he resigned, and he has since been replaced. I will certainly find out and I will pass the information on to the Member.
The Department of Culture, Arts and Leisure will provide £2·3 million to the North/South language body in its start-up year. Of that, £1·8 million will go to Foras na Gaeilge, and £0·5 million will go to Tha Boord o Ulster-Scotch. Indicative funding will rise next year, and the Department of Culture, Arts and Leisure will provide a total of £3·5 million to the Irish language and Ulster-Scots. Tha Boord o Ulster-Scotch will receive £1·3 million, which represents a tenfold increase on the funds it received a couple of years ago.
And then we are back to a library for Lisburn. I can add nothing to the answers I have given the Member on other occasions. I am actively bidding for capital funding for libraries — I am straying off the subject, Mr Speaker, if you will forgive me. It has been decided to go down the private finance initiative (PFI) route for a library for Lisburn rather than go down the traditional route of approaching the Department for capital funding. If that is successful, a library will be provided, and if it is not, traditional funding will doubtless be sought from the Department, as was the case with other libraries.
Libraries are important, but our language and our heritage are also important. Heritage is valuable to us, and, as Dr Johnson said, "Language is the pedigree of nations". Languages are an important part of our culture and our heritage, and we are particularly lucky here in Northern Ireland, and in the British Isles in general, to have a rich and indigenous linguistic tradition. It would be a shame if we were to lose that.
There is an oral tradition in Ulster-Scots that is vanishing because time marches on and the tradition is held by elderly members of our population. Tha Boord o Ulster- Scotch is recording that oral tradition so that the vocabulary and phraseology are not lost. This is very timely.
We have to be prepared to spend some moneys, and this year we are contributing £2·3million to language. Next year we will be contributing £3·5million. From the overall Budget of £6billion that was discussed yesterday, the allocation of £2·3million to preserve something as important as the tradition of Ulster-Scots, for example, is worthwhile. I also firmly believe that we have rich indigenous linguistic traditions in Ulster-Scots and Irish that are worth preserving. The small amount that we are talking about to ensure that Ulster-Scots is preserved and promoted is important because it enriches all of us.

Mr Donovan McClelland: That was the last question, but I believe DrAdamson wishes to speak.

Dr Ian Adamson: I thank the Minister for his work for the language movements throughout the year and I wish him a bonnie Yuletid an a blyth New Yeir.

Economic Development Agencies

Sir Reg Empey: I want to make a statement on the reorganization of the Department of Enterprise, Trade and Investment’s economic development agencies. Members will recall that the Programme for Government identified the focusing of the economic development agencies on the new challenges as a key issue. I have considered how the economic development agencies within the ambit of my Department should be reorganised to meet those new challenges in the most efficient and effective manner. Several agencies fall within the ambit of my proposals.
The Industrial Development Board (IDB) employs 358staff and has a budget of £135million. Since it was set up in 1982, it has been responsible for attracting inward investment, encouraging the growth, improving the competitiveness of indigenous companies and promoting and assisting the development of international trade. The IDB is an executive arm of my Department.
The Local Enterprise Development Unit (LEDU) has 187 staff and a budget of £28million. Set up in 1971, it is responsible for supporting local economic development and promoting the establishment and expansion of local enterprises that normally employ fewer than 50people. LEDU is a company limited by guarantee.
The Industrial Research and Technology Unit (IRTU) employs 143staff and has a budget of £22million. Set up in 1992, it is responsible for spearheading the drive for competitiveness in Northern Ireland companies through innovation, research and development and the use of technology and technology transfer. It also provides a range of scientific, technological and environmental services to the Government and industry. Since 1995, IRTU has been a Next Steps agency.
The Company Development Programme (CDP) was formerly administered by the Training and Employment Agency. However, it is currently part of the Department of Enterprise, Trade and Investment and employs 30staff. It provides assistance to management and skills training in companies.
Finally, there is the Northern Ireland Tourist Board (NITB), which, in addition to its promotional and marketing roles, has some 30staff who administer financial support to businesses in the tourism sector. The NITB is a non- departmental public body.
As a first step in this process, I commissioned detailed research on the current arrangement and on how economic development support is administered in other parts of the UK, in the Republic of Ireland, in mainland Europe and further afield. I also asked for a detailed report on local enterprise provision. In October, I issued a consultative paper entitled ‘Towards a New Structure for Economic Development Support in Northern Ireland’. I sent it to ministerial Colleagues, the Enterprise, Trade and Investment Committee, the business bodies, other social partners, through the Economic Development Forum, and NIPSA, the trade union representing staff in the existing agencies. Responses were received from over 40 interested parties, representing a wide cross-section of opinion. The clear and constructive input of ministerial Colleagues and the Enterprise, Trade and Investment Committee was particularly appreciated and helpful.
The overwhelming weight of opinion supported the view that the time is now right for a better and more efficient delivery of economic development services, and that the best and most efficient means of achieving this is through the establishment of a new, single agency. The clear predominance of opinion is that the agency should have more flexibility and creditability and it would also be more responsive to the needs of its clients if it were at arm’s length from Government. In short, it needs to be capable of responding quickly and should not play catch-up in an intensely competitive global market place. It must be dynamic, nimble and focused, with more emphasis on getting the job done and less on bureaucracy and it must have as its core a more aggressive and targeted approach to the international stage to position and promote Northern Ireland as a business base with few rivals.
In my deliberations, I have examined a wide range of options. These include: integration of service delivery entirely within the Department of Enterprise, Trade and Investment; the status quo and minor variations from it; a lead-agency scenario, and the setting up of a single agency both inside and outside Government. Many commentators and respondents to the consultation paper have been adamant that structures should follow strategy and that if the strategic context and policy direction are not right, the structure, in itself, will not contribute significantly to the success or otherwise of our efforts.
Although the work I have undertaken has been focused primarily on the most appropriate structures, I should emphasise that a great deal of work has already been done on both the strategic context and the policy framework. This includes not only work on Strategy 2010, but more recently, the detailed work which led to the draft Programme for Government and ongoing work in the Department of Enterprise, Trade and Investment on corporate planning on a three-year basis and operational plans for the coming year.
The Department has also been looking critically at aspects of service delivery that cut across a number of the existing agencies. These include: export services and programmes; the use of repayable forms of assistance; and how indigenous businesses are handled.
These deliberations have been set in the broad framework of post-Strategy 2010 thinking, in the context of Northern Ireland business’s operating in a global economy and facing ever more rapid technological change and in the context of the growing role of local government in economic development.
Globalization means that all businesses in Northern Ireland — large and small — face the same challenges, and all must innovate and respond to new technologies. In turn, the Department of Enterprise, Trade and Investment must provide a comprehensive service to businesses, and I believe that a single agency is now the most appropriate vehicle to deliver this.
Some may ask "Why bother?" That is a valid question, and the answer is simple: for years, our agencies did sterling work, both at home and abroad, against the backdrop of a reign of terror. They had to grapple with the negative image of Northern Ireland created by the gunman and the bomber. Corporate doors were closed to them — not unnaturally. Potential investors sought stable economic and political regions before even considering the sales pitch. This means that the successes they have scored were all the more remarkable, and for that they are owed a debt of gratitude.
The climate is changing, however. Northern Ireland is climbing slowly back to normality, and we need to capitalise on the new opportunities that are opening up. That means that to attract the best, we have to modernise, innovate and seek new ways of doing the job.
I have considered in detail whether such an agency should be inside or outside Government. With the advent of devolution and the re-organization of Departments, there are plausible arguments for keeping such significant expenditure — currently in the region of £200 million — within the direct control of Government. However, in order to meet the challenges of the knowledge- based economy — which we must promote even more keenly — we need structures which facilitate rapid decision taking and give flexibility to respond to changing markets. We need to be able to employ key specialists and offer the terms necessary to motivate them. I am convinced that this cannot be easily achieved within the Civil Service. Northern Ireland is unique in the United Kingdom, and, indeed, in these islands and further afield, in having economic development responsibilities so close to Government.
I have, therefore, concluded that the right model is a single economic development agency in the form of a non-departmental public body (NDPB) sponsored by my Department. In such an arrangement, accountability will be a key issue. The details are yet to be defined, but the permanent secretary will remain as overall accounting officer. I have had helpful input from the Minister of Finance and Personnel, Mr Durkan, and officials from his Department on accountability arrangements and financial and personnel implications. We shall wish to follow up on the detail with the Department of Finance and Personnel in due course. I also wish to consult with other ministerial Colleagues in order to learn from best practice on accountability in their areas.
Although the performance of the existing agencies has been strong, particularly in the last few years, we face new challenges, and the new agency should be designed to meet them. It will not be an amalgamation of the existing agencies, but an entirely new body. As an NDPB, it will have an executive board. I shall consider the composition of this board carefully, but shall certainly wish to include representatives of the social partners. The agency’s ethos will be professional, businesslike and responsive to customer need. The mainstay of its focus will be the promotion and facilitation of innovation and entrepreneurship in the economy.
The new approach will facilitate a shift towards assistance more appropriate to the needs of dynamic indigenous businesses seeking to respond quickly to the rapidly changing demands and skill requirements of the knowledge-driven, service-based global economy. It will seek to accelerate the modernization of our traditional businesses and will strongly promote international trade in support of GDP growth. It will liaise with and develop appropriate partnership arrangements with local government and will be responsible for attracting inward investment aggressively.
The creation of jobs and wealth is essential to it all. Talent is a precious commodity, and we have it in abundance. We cannot afford to export it to other countries where it flourishes. We must be creative in finding new ways of keeping that talent at home, of saying and then proving to our people — our asset base — that they need not emigrate and put down new roots elsewhere, for everything they want is right here. To do that, it is vital that we engineer the right business and economic culture to allow talent to blossom, new products to be developed, and jobs to be created.
This "road map" to address the challenges and opportunities that lie ahead is therefore people-centred and people-driven. I do not suggest change for the sake of change; change is imperative if we are to realise our full potential and build the kind of future that many of us in this House have worked for so long to achieve.
I therefore propose to establish an entirely new economic development agency that will have a high degree of autonomy, but also be clearly accountable to my Department and to myself. It will have a remit including the existing activities of the IDB, LEDU, IRTU, the company development programme (formerly part of the T&EA) and the business support activities of the NITB.
As Members will be aware, the new North/South Tourism Company will promote the island of Ireland as a single tourist destination to the mutual benefit of both parts of the island. However, the NITB continues to have statutory responsibility for its important functions of promoting Northern Ireland as a holiday destination, regulating the industry, and assisting its small businesses. Through this restructuring, I propose to integrate the development of Northern Ireland’s tourism businesses into mainstream local economic development.
In response to my consultation paper, many of those commenting on tourism were firmly of the view that assistance to the tourism sector was no different in principle or practice to business support for any other business sector. Indeed, it is perceived that support for businesses in the tourism sector will be strengthened in the new economic development agency. This transfer of business support functions will free the NITB to concentrate on functions which should remain with a free-standing statutory tourist board. Of key importance is the need to build a strong, professional marketing role based on an understanding of what Northern Ireland has to offer and how it should best be communicated.
It is imperative that the NITB continues to work closely with key industry interests in tourism, so that a coherent approach is presented and understood by all.
The Department of Enterprise, Trade and Investment will continue to exercise its responsibilities in relation to wider economic development policy, energy, tourism, health and safety, consumer interests and business regulation. The Department will retain the key responsibility to set and drive policy in relation to the new single agency. As noted, the Department will be a key link in the accountability chain for the agency’s expenditure.
I am acutely aware of the importance of integrating strategy and policy with service delivery. In developing detailed implementation plans for the new agency, I will be seeking to build in mechanisms to ensure close working relationships between the agency, the Department and the other Departments that have key roles in economic development.
The policy, practice and implementation of industrially focused research and development will be centrally embedded within our new economic support structure. By effectively harnessing our existing expertise, the new agency will fully exploit the contribution of the science and technology base in the creation of a sustainable, knowledge-based economy. In furtherance of this, relationships between the agency, the Department of Higher and Further Education, Training and Employment, the universities and business will be fully developed. The mainstay of our focus will be the promotion and facilitation of innovation and entrepreneurship in the economy. The "golden thread of innovation" will be woven through the entire fabric of the new agency.
The restructuring I am proposing will not of itself impact on the arrangements for local economic development. At present, LEDU has the lead role within the Department of Enterprise, Trade and Employment for liaison with the councils and other bodies that undertake local economic activities. The IDB has a separate but important responsibility to work with the councils to market their areas to potential inward investors. These two functions will be brought together and enhanced in the new agency within the context of the small business strategy, which is one of my actions in the Programme for Government.
There is considerable scope for better co-ordination and elimination of duplication in local economic development, and my aim will be to make as much progress as possible on this, pending the review of local government. I welcome this review, and I hope that a restructured local government will be better placed to develop its relationships with the new agency and to exploit the greater scope which will exist for specific actions to be undertaken in due course by councils.
Closely related to local economic development is the social economy, and we have accepted that this is a sector that has potential to contribute more to our social inclusion agenda. At this stage, I have not decided whether the new agency should have the lead role on the social economy within the Department of Enterprise, Trade and Investment or if this should remain with the Department. I will be considering this as part of the detailed planning for the new agency.
Staffing of the new agency will be critical. We are indebted to our existing staff for their efforts hitherto, sometimes in very trying circumstances. I am proposing to build on the expertise of the agency staff who will be working at the new agency from its launch. I expect many of them to remain and develop their careers therein. The existing staff are a mix of civil servants, mainly IDB and IRTU staff, but it includes a small number of former T&EA staff in the Business Support Division, and public servants, mainly from LEDU. There is also a small number of employees from the NITB, who currently administer grant support to small businesses in tourism. I have, therefore, decided that the best way to proceed is to second the civil servants to the new agency, transfer LEDU staff and relevant staff of the NITB, and give the agency the facility to recruit directly in order to meet its changing needs quickly and flexibly. The agency will have a strong regional profile and will draw up and implement its own equality scheme. A high level of priority will be given to both equality and New TSN issues. I am wholly and practically committed to determining how more efficient and effective business support can be increasingly focused in the areas of highest need, many of which also now offer the best opportunities for employers to attain the employees they need.
Although decisions have been taken in principle, there is still significant work to be done. I want to pay particular tribute to the restructuring unit in my own Department, which has worked so hard and coherently over the last six months. Preliminary assessment shows that the changes that I am contemplating are likely to have a positive financial impact, but a full cost-benefit analysis will be required as further details are established. Work has been carried out on the equality implications of such a change, but, again, more comprehensive consideration will be required, and consultation with section 75 groups and others will be undertaken.
I will present a policy memorandum to the Executive Committee in January, seeking approval to introduce legislation as soon as possible thereafter. However, on the basis of the weight of legislation currently under consideration, I feel that it is unlikely that the legislation will be passed before autumn 2001. The new agency will be formally established as soon as it is practicable to do so thereafter.
I will conclude by summarizing matters. Currently, Northern Ireland is substantially a small and medium-sized (SME) business economy. In recent years, great strides have been made towards normality. In business terms, significant and welcome progress has been made. For example, in 1999 employment in Northern Ireland in the new industries — tradable services and information and communications technology — increased by over 30%.
Significant new challenges still lie ahead. The economy must be increasingly geared towards meeting the needs of the rapidly changing, knowledge-based, global economy, where demands are increasing all the time. To do this, we need more vibrant, entrepreneurial, local businesses, which are capable of winning export business and generating greater wealth. It is imperative that the Northern Ireland economy grasp the opportunity now available to it. We must respond with confidence to these new challenges. If it is done correctly, the future can be faced with confidence — a future with greater wealth and prosperity for all in an inclusive, fair and stable society.
Northern Ireland has a long and proud tradition founded on its inventiveness and its ability to innovate. That same business acumen and courage will dictate the shape of our second industrial age. Already, efforts to nurture knowledge-based industries have been impressive, but I must tell the House that they are merely a beginning. If this necessary restructuring of our agencies is driven with vision and vigour, we can fast track the growth — along with the hope — that we all need in the Northern Ireland of the new century.
I know that more investment can be encouraged from home and abroad. I also know that our local businesses, our workers, and the staff in my Department and its agencies have the confidence to achieve what is needed for the future. I ask the House to support me, my Department and the new agency in the daunting task that lies ahead.

Mr Pat Doherty: A LeasCheann Comhairle, I welcome the Minister’s statement, and I wish him well in completing the enormous task that he has set himself by autumn next year. I also welcome his kind comments about my Committee. The Minister recognised the clear and constructive, collective input that the Committee had made to this report. I recognise in the Minister’s statement a commitment to innovation, co-operation, the tourist industry, industrial and information technology development, the social economy and equality.
Can the Minister reaffirm the new single agency’s commitment to New TSN as a core value? I acknowledge the comment on page four of the Minister’s statement that the climate is changing and that we are slowly climbing back to normality. However, does the Minister recognise that the North’s negative image has many more roots than those mentioned in his statement?

Sir Reg Empey: I thank the Member for his comments.
I said in the statement that New TSN and equality issues will be, and will continue to be, at the heart of this. We have set targets in the Programme for Government. Those targets are very ambitious, and are aimed at achieving not only 75% of first-time visits into TSN areas by potential inward investors, but 75% of new jobs in those same areas. Those are very ambitious targets.
In my opinion, there is potential in many of those areas, because they have the potential resource of personnel that companies need. I said in my statement that I believed that we could match the needs of companies to the skills in those areas. That is not something that can be done by my Department alone. We will need to audit the TSN areas to ascertain the skills base and training needs to match the skills of the local community to the requirements of the new businesses, and the indigenous businesses which we hope will expand.
That is a huge task, and I must acknowledge the co-operation of Dr Farren, Minister of Higher and Further Education, Training and Employment, and his Colleagues, because we are working very closely with them to ensure that there is a real possibility of achieving those objectives.
I do not want the House to doubt for one minute our desire to succeed. One of the purposes behind the new agency is to create the recognition that Northern Ireland is a small economy. Its compactness, the free movement of ideas, and the joining together of the different themes will help to accelerate our achievement of the aims set out in the Programme for Government.
Our negative image goes back a long way. We owe a debt of gratitude to those working in tourism and to those who have tried to achieve inward investment and indigenous expansion against our background of the last 30 years. It would be churlish not to place on the record our debt of gratitude to those civil servants and other public servants who have achieved very considerable success against such a terrible backdrop.

Mr Sean Neeson: I warmly wel- come the Minister’s very important statement today. During the Committee’s investigation into ‘Strategy 2010’, we found very strong support in the community for the proposals which the Minister has brought forward this morning.
In his statement, the Minister said that Northern Ireland is substantially a SME economy. We made a very successful visit to North America in August. We visited the offices of the American Small Business Administration, which is very innovative in dealing with small businesses and encouraging a much wider remit for the development of small businesses than we have under LEDU. Bearing that in mind, will the Minister be taking on board some of the ideas and lessons that we learnt from that visit, and does he also recognise that, through such innovative developments, more women can be encouraged to participate in business?
Finally, does the Minister also accept that, if we are to move away from the grant culture towards providing softer incentives for business development, local banks will need to become more involved in the economic development process?

Sir Reg Empey: I am indebted to the Member for his comments. I accept that our economy is primarily a small- business economy. We are indebted to LEDU for the work that it has done, and is continuing to do, in that sector.
Our visit to Washington in August, when we met representatives from the Small Business Administration, was not our first encounter with that organization. Dr McDonnell and I, along with our colleagues, met Aida Alvarez, the American Cabinet Minister, who is responsible for the Small Business Administration, in Belfast in 1998. We were impressed then, as we were in August.
There is no doubt that the vast growth in the American economy has come from employment in small businesses. The major Fortune 500 companies have not increased employment. Small businesses have also brought many more women into business. Most of those setting up new businesses through the Small Business Administration are women. Northern Ireland is behind in that area, although we are improving. However, we should take a new look at how to develop the required packages. We are trying to move away from the grant culture and, in the case of small businesses, we are — to a significant extent — succeeding. However, further work is required.
There is continuing criticism of the role of the clearing banks in business in Northern Ireland and throughout the United Kingdom. In America there is a different legal framework which obliges them to provide certain services to local communities. I am keen to explore the idea of offering loan guarantees to replace grants.
We must change the way that we offer assistance. The Department of Enterprise, Trade and Investment is considering proposals on how to rebalance the packages that we can offer. I am open to the Committee’s views on how that could be best done, but I am conscious that a new agency will want to focus on what it believes to be the best way of getting back the spirit of entrepreneurship that used to be dominant in Northern Ireland. A century ago, Northern Ireland had one of the most innovative economies in the world. I want us to return to that, because we have been languishing in recent years, despite some significant improvements. Much more could be done, and that is one of the major challenges that we face.

Mr Donovan McClelland: I remind Members and the Minister that many Members wish to speak, and therefore they should be as concise as possible.

Dr Esmond Birnie: I congratulate the Minister on dealing with this issue. It has been long discussed but, until now, no action has been taken. It has often been said that form should follow function. Given that, how does the new structure promote innovation and the attainment of a higher rate of research and development spending in the local economy?
Does the Minister think that the Company Development Programme (CDP) is better located in the new agency or in its former home, the Training and Employment Agency? The statement is relatively silent on the issue of the internal demarcations in the new agency. Will there be sub-divisions, for example, for internal industries and externally owned firms?

Sir Reg Empey: One of the principal reasons for the reorganization was to put innovation at the core. In the consultation document, I said that the golden thread of innovation would run right through the agency. The IRTU, which was the most recent of the organizations to be set up, has made a significant improvement to our recognition of the importance of research. The Department has tried to take that work forward through the information age initiative, but I felt that it was wrong to have it sitting in splendid isolation; it must be brought into the centre of things. I assure the Member that a top priority will be to reach the targets set out in the Programme for Government for an increase in research and development.
That is the only way that we will keep ahead of the competition. It is the key issue in the knowledge-based economy to which we are committed. The CDP was not put into the Training and Employment Agency when the new Departments were created, because CDP concentrates on training for people who are in work, as opposed to those who are out of work.
I said to MrDoherty that the key will be to match the needs of companies to the new situation and, therefore, to the skills of their employees. We have to bear in mind that we are in the era of lifelong learning, so when an employee joins a company, he has to be continuously trained and retrained. It is one of the mechanisms we can use, as opposed to grants — one of the softer forms of assistance that we can make. For that reason, I am fully committed to having the CDP as an integral part of the agency.
There will be internal demarcations, but I wish to consult further with the Department, and I may engage other assistance, because we must remember that we have a transition programme to move through. There is a great deal of detail to be worked out, and consultation must take place with regard to section75 of the Northern Ireland Act 1998, so it will be some time before I can bring forward detailed proposals. All of these matters will have to be addressed in the new agency.

Dr Alasdair McDonnell: I warmly welcome the Minister’s statement. Now that we are in the twenty-first century, we all recognise that there is a desperate need to refocus our efforts on the whole range of economic development. We have seen how many North American cities and regions have reinvented themselves over the last few years.
The statement goes a long way towards clearing the air and removing the uncertainty and indecision that prevailed. I particularly welcome the Minister’s comment that the new agency will need to be capable of responding quickly and not playing catch-up in an intensely global marketplace; that it must be dynamic, nimble and focused, with more emphasis on getting the job done, and less on bureaucracy; that it must have, at its core, a more aggressive and targeted approach —

Mr Donovan McClelland: Dr McDonnell, will you please come to your question?

Dr Alasdair McDonnell: We desperately need this new agency to meet the challenges that we face. We need a much stronger emphasis on innovation and research. Can we assume and ensure that the "golden thread" that the Minister mentions is sufficiently robust and effective, and that it is not so fine that we can barely see it? That is the nub. We can have a golden thread running through it, but if it is very fine, it may get lost. That thread will need to be very strong, because it will form the backbone. Can we get the necessary legislation moving much more quickly? I am a little worried by the suggestion that it will take a year to put the whole thing in place. We need to avoid wasting time. What can we do now to begin to implement the reshaping and restructuring that will move the process on? The rest of the world will not wait for us; we have to get ahead.

Sir Reg Empey: I assure the Member that the whole purpose of doing this, from my point of view, is to introduce innovation and research into people’s natural way of thinking — to make them systematic. That is why I was concerned about the IRTU’s being isolated; I was also concerned about the information age initiative’s being isolated. I want the ideas, skills and knowledge of people in those organizations to continue to exist throughout the new agency. If that does not happen, we will have failed, and we will not be successful in the market place. It is as simple as that.
12.00
With regard to the Member’s point about legislation, I was trying to end the uncertainty, as he suggested. I am conscious, however, that a great deal of staff there are doing a good job. I am conscious that they have careers, and I do not want to delay or lose the momentum of the agencies. I will be doing everything to work with the staff to ensure that that does not happen.
Members control the legislation, and the best thing we could do would be to improve the speed with which we pass legislation. In reviewing the Assembly’s performance so far, it seems that we have not passed legislation with the speed which we would like. If this legislation could be passed more quickly, I assure the Member that I would not be holding it back.

Mr Jim Wells: Will the Minister accept that there would be a general welcome for what has been proposed? It is very much in line with what the Committee decided.
I welcome the tribute paid to the staff who played such an important role in promoting inward investment during a very difficult period of Northern Ireland’s history. Does the Minister accept that there will be a great deal of concern and uncertainty on the part of the staff of the present agencies about his statement that a "majority" of the staff will be transferred to the new body? The implication is that a number of staff members will not be transferred to the new body. Can he tell the House how many staff will not be transferred and what grades will be affected? Can he assure the House that those who are not transferred, but who are civil servants, will be offered alternative employment within the Civil Service? What will happen to those members of staff who are not civil servants, and who have not been offered an opportunity of employment in the new body? Will he accept that there will be some concern if the reward for staff who have been working for 10 or 15 years, trying to promote Northern Ireland in terribly difficult circumstances, is to be made unemployed as a result of this decision.

Sir Reg Empey: Inevitably, in any change process, there is bound to be concern. I have made it clear, on a number of occasions this morning, that I appreciate the work that has been done. I said that, from day one, the agency will be staffed by people currently working for existing bodies. The precise scale has not yet been determined. There are outstanding matters. For instance, I have not concluded how we should treat the social economy — whether it should be done in the Department, through the agency, or by some other mechanism. However, we have been in close contact with our trade union representatives, and I have assured them that there will be no compulsory redundancies as a result of this activity. I have further assured them that no individual member of staff will be personally disadvantaged as a result of this reorganization.
Staff in the agencies are of various categories. Some are civil servants and some are public servants — for example, LEDU is a company limited by guarantee outside the Government. People are of different status. Within the IDB, civil servants have different categories. It is a very complicated issue, but it is our intention to ensure that nobody is disadvantaged; there will be no compulsory redundancies, and staff have been assured of this.
We will be working as hard as possible to ensure that we do not lose our present momentum. When it comes to carrying out the reorganization, people will be given every opportunity. I believe that the majority will choose to remain in Economic Development and develop their careers there. Obviously, there may be positive financial aspects from this, as the total number of staff may be less than is currently employed. The precise details of that have not been worked out, but I can assure the Member that people will not be disadvantaged or made redundant.

Dr Dara O'Hagan: As a Member of the Enterprise, Trade and Investment Committee, I look forward to working with the Minister on this and other issues in the coming months. An overhaul of the agencies, especially the IDB, has been long overdue. Concerns have been expressed about accountability, transparency, performance and value for money. These were especially outlined by the Westminster Public Accounts Committee. Will the Minister assure this House that adequate measures will be taken to ensure that the mistakes of the past are not repeated?
The Enterprise, Trade and Investment Committee intends to visit the South of Ireland, Scotland and Wales in January. We will meet with other bodies in those three jurisdictions. It is to be hoped that those meetings will show us how they do things, and we will pass that on.
A Department of Enterprise, Trade and Investment working group reported that there was considerable scope for greater co-operation in trade development on the island of Ireland. What links and co-operation does the Minister foresee between this new body and the Industrial Development Agency (IDA), Enterprise Ireland and the all-Ireland trade body, InterTrade Ireland, which was established under the North/South Ministerial Council? Go raibh maith agat.

Sir Reg Empey: I am looking forward, obviously, to hearing from the Committee after it visits the other agencies in these islands to see how they do things. As I said, we have carried out a body of research, which I am sure has been available to you, and it will be interesting to meet people and to see how they see things.
Of course, we must remember at all times that we are competitors and that we are fighting for many of the same pieces of potential inward investment, but that has not stopped us from co-operating. In May, the IDB and IDA met for the first time. They have undertaken some work, particularly in the north-west — as the Member’s Colleague will be aware — and there has been further communication since then. I have every reason to believe that the board of the IDB is planning to continue that work.
InterTrade Ireland has specific roles, which do not include inward investment, but it does have the role of promoting trade, in which it has been very active. There is a good deal of communication between all the development agencies and InterTrade Ireland for the simple reason that it is necessary to work together to ensure that there is no overlap. InterTrade Ireland had a focused remit in the first few months of its life, which was drawn from the agreement. It had a particular agenda to work through from its inception. It is working its way through that, and a progress report was given at the last meeting of the body. It is beginning to develop its corporate plans and find the most effective use of its time.
Co-operation between these organizations — joining up their activities —is common sense. I am confident that the new agency will, as part of its natural development, be able to harness any communications and work together with other organizations to avoid duplication. I do not doubt that it will wish to review the general memorandums of understanding that exist in these islands to ensure that we are not involved in Dutch auctions for potential inward investments.

Mr Roy Beggs: I welcome the Minister’s reassurances that no staff will be disadvantaged by the change and that there will not be compulsory redundancies in any of the agencies. Does the Minister agree that one of the benefits of having a central body is that there will be less central administration than within the former four bodies? Does he agree that this will provide better support for local businesses and enable more money to be spent on support and advice to businesses, rather than on civil servants who are operating administration within the various Departments?

Sir Reg Empey: A central administration will possibly be more effective than having three or four, and, as I pointed out, the impact of this is likely to be financially positive, but quite apart from the savings, it will bring organizations together with the exchange of ideas, networking, and so on.
If people who are doing the same sort of work in isolation, inevitably, a great deal of experience and knowledge will be lost as a result of that. We want to minimise the bureaucracy and focus the maximum amount of resources on the delivery of a service to businesses. I must say that I agree.
There are up to 300 different organizations in Northern Ireland that deliver some form of economic development or training service. This illustrates our huge task of ensuring that there is no duplication, that we do not spend more money than is needed on administration, and that the maximum effort is focused on service delivery. Despite the financial aspect, this will ensure that the same quality of service is delivered throughout the Province. That is why the organization must have a regional focus.

Mr Joe Byrne: I welcome the Minister’s comprehensive statement, particularly the thrusts and themes it contains. The Minister is certainly grasping the nettle in relation to economic development agencies.
I contend that LEDU was so successful because it was very close to people in all regions through its area offices. We must ensure that a more centralised, bureaucratic system does not evolve as a result of the creation of a single agency. Will the agency have area offices in all the regions?
Secondly, it is important that the board reflect all of Northern Ireland, and not simply specific or preferred persons. A geographical spread is needed. The staff and the culture of the staff are vital, and I pay tribute to the employees that have been involved. However, if there is to be an enterprise-driven culture, it will be necessary to develop a more innovative and energetic culture among the senior management of this new agency. This will promote the enterprise drive that we will have to face in the future.
Finally, I have been concerned about inward investment for some time, particularly the almost unhealthy relationship that exists between preferred consultancy firms, accountancy firms and the agencies. This causes annoyance to other smaller accountancy firms, which feel that they too could prepare professional business plans and make good assessments of potential projects. Can the Minister assure us that, in the future, there will not be the same cosy relationship that might, in the past, have existed among some of the larger accountancy firms?

Sir Reg Empey: I will take note of the Member’s last point and seek advice on it.
This organization will have a regional focus, but I cannot make any assurances to the Member about West Tyrone, which is presumably what he is driving at. If the agency is to be effective it must be represented throughout the Province, rather than in only one location. I have made that clear.
Furthermore, I have said that the board will reflect the social partners, and all issues will have to be incorporated. We must have effective people. I am conscious of the regional aspect involved, and that has been taken into account in appointments to existing boards. It is a very difficult task. There will be competition under the normal guidelines for membership of this new board, and, when we are setting the criteria, we will have to take care to get it right. Once those are set, the matter is beyond our control. We will certainly wish to take those points into account.
We have all talked about grasping the nettle. Among those of us at local government level, the issue has been raised on and off for years. I hope my response to MrWells clarified our direction. I was anxious to end the uncertainty, not to create more. Staff are now conscious of what we are doing, and they know where we are going with this. Our task in the next few months is to ensure that we carry this out in a businesslike and professional way. When the final distribution of area offices is determined, we will see whether the Member believes that I am grasping the nettle.

Mr Edwin Poots: I welcome the Minister’s statement, particularly the point about putting more emphasis on getting the job done and reducing bureaucracy, and everybody would welcome that. Further to that, can the Minister outline the efficiency that would result from the amalgamation of the agencies? Will he also tell us about ongoing developments with local authorities? The Minister talks about doing this on the basis of a review of local authorities, but it might take up to fouryears before that is complete and the new local authorities are in place. In the past, there has often been a "hands off" relationship between local authorities and, for example, the IDB. Can he also outline the relationship with the North/South Trade and Business Development Body? When will the issue of accountability be clearly defined? Will the Minister guarantee that the appointments to the non-departmental public bodies will be made fairly, and that people will not be excluded because of their political viewpoints?

Sir Reg Empey: With regard to the relationship with local authorities, the Member will know that I spent many years working in local economic development. I strongly believe in local economic development and in a specific role in that for local authorities. A few years ago, we were given that opportunity for the first time, and it has been a resounding success in councils across the Province. It has given councils a focus. Against the background at that time, we were not even allowed to control car parking — incidentally, we still have no control of that. We were not fit to do that. When people gave us something to do at local government level, we did it, and we did it well. I strongly believe that the improvement in local government is due, in no small measure, to the handing over of some local economic development powers to local authorities.
I sincerely hope that it does not take fouryears to sort out revised local government arrangements. I accept that there has been a "hands off, stay away" approach in the past. I have experienced it myself, and I understand the reasons for it. I hope those days are over. I believe that local government must have a meaningful relationship with the new agency.
Local authorities should have an increased role in local economic development as we move forward. One inhibiting factor is the fact that some local authorities, because of their size and financial base, are at a significant disadvantage and are not, therefore, capable of implementing programmes which I would like to see implemented. The Member knows what I am getting at.
Nevertheless, it is my intention that local government will continue to play a significant and growing role in the delivery of economic development services. That, I believe, is what people want.
With regard to accountability, I said that I am in discussions with the Department of Finance and Personnel. As an Assembly, we have to take a view, and the legislation, when it is passed, will give Members the opportunity to satisfy themselves that the accountability mechanisms in place will be adequate.
The appointments to the board will be carried out properly and people will not be penalised for their political views. The agency’s relationship with InterTrade Ireland will be a matter for the agency. InterTrade Ireland does not have an inward investment function and the organisations will not, therefore, clash in those areas. All the agencies and bodies involved in this matter, including local government, will find it easier to deal with a single organisation, rather than having to replicate their lobbying activities with three or four organisations.

Ms Mary Nelis: Go raibh maith agat, a LeasCheann Comhairle. I add my voice to those who welcome the Minister’s statement. As the Minister stated, we need a rapid-response mechanism to cope with changing global situations, which we have not had from the IDB and LEDU. There are concerns about what has taken place at the Hawkes Bay factory, Ulster Ceramics, Carrington, Viyella, Milanda and United Technology and the raft of closures in the Foyle constituency because, in large part, these jobs are filled by women.
How will the new agency service those areas, which are seen by some as the far-flung reaches of the Six Counties, namely the west and the north-west? All of the stars, a LeasCheann Comhairle, cannot be located in the east; therefore, does the Minister envisage the new agency establishing local offices in those constituencies with the highest unemployment, working in tandem with councils and their social partners?
I also welcome the Minister’s decision to integrate the tourism business into mainstream local economic development work, in co-operation with the North/South tourism company. Why does he feel it necessary to keep the NITB in place? Surely, this will be an unnecessary expense as well as causing some confusion?

Sir Reg Empey: I will deal with the last point. The NITB will be required and will continue because it has the role of promoting tourism in Northern Ireland. Do not forget that the NITB and Bord Fáilte have established the tourism company. The new company is a marketing company in which the two tourist boards are shareholders. It will effectively be the delivery mechanism for regional marketing but the substance of that regional marketing will come from the tourist boards. Their chairmen and chief executives will be on the board of the new company.
There is also the matter of the whole range of other promotional activities. There is the regulation of the industry, and a range of other matters including how aid is given to tourist businesses. In my statement I said that the business support mechanism for carrying out and administering grants or other forms of assistance to tourism and businesses is currently undertaken by about 30 persons in the NITB. They are doing the same job as, for instance, the IDB, which operates on a much larger scale. Just because a business focuses on tourism, it is not necessarily different from other businesses. It does not change the grant mechanism or the processing of the work. Therefore it was natural to bring those business support mechanisms together under one umbrella.
There will be an ongoing need for a tourist board. The Republic, Scotland and Wales are all promoted by strong tourism boards. That will remain the case. I detect no desire on the part of Bord Fáilte to close itself down.
I have made it my business to be in the north-west as frequently as possible and I hope, if I am spared, to be there again very shortly. I am aware of the recent closures. I am also aware of the recent openings and announcements. Some of them have been very positive, and I hope that before the week is out we will have another positive report to make.
One of the key issues is the ability to provide a rapid response. The nature of the businesses that we are dealing with has changed. Quicker answers are required. The time between starting a project and getting it under way has been greatly reduced. Our system has clearly been creaking somewhat in its attempt to keep up. The time is right, particularly with the new types of industries and businesses that we have to deal with, to review how we deliver the service. That is part of the rationale for reorganisation.

Mrs Annie Courtney: I welcome the Minister’s announcement on the restructure of the agencies. I am aware of the work of local councils, including my own, Derry City Council, in the field of economic development, and I welcome the Minister’s commitment to this. As a former member of the NITB, I also welcome his commitment to it.
What response will the Minister or the existing agencies make to the disastrous announcement made yesterday by Hawkes Bay about redundancies in Derry and Newtownards? As the Minister is aware, 5,000 jobs have already been lost in the manufacturing sector in Northern Ireland since 1997, often at the rate of 300 per month. I come from a socially deprived area which, in the past, depended on the shirt-making industry. This is a further blow to an already ailing textile industry, which is facing an uncertain future. We need urgent action to counteract these job losses.

Mr Donovan McClelland: I remind Members that questions must be based on the statement.

Sir Reg Empey: I always admire the resourcefulness of Members from the north-west in managing to squeeze something in. I also welcome the Member here. I am very aware that this is a digression, but we should perhaps get it out of the way because it is obviously on a number of people’s minds. I am aware of the issue to which the Member refers. However, that particular matter may not be finished, and people will have to be patient.
These redundancies come at a terribly bad time, but compared with other areas, our manufacturing sector has been holding up remarkably well — far better than that in Great Britain, for instance. There have been problems, but they are not as bad as they might have been. The gains are still exceeding the losses, and we have to remember that.
I hope that this new agency will be very focused. In response to Mr P Doherty’s statement, I have said that new targeting social need and equality issues will be at its core. That has implications for the regions. I can assure Members that that will be one of the methods by which its success will be judged.

Mr Derek Hussey: I welcome the Minister’s statement. I was not in the Chamber to hear it, but I heard it on the radio on my way here. It is long overdue. The Minister is aware — and I think this is where his reasoning has come from — of the idea that LEDU deals with small businesses and the IDB deals with the large ones. A group of small-to-medium-sized enterprises (SMEs) has always been caught in the middle. Can the Minister assure us that the new body will have a broader banding than merely "big" and "small"?
I welcome the greater coherence in job creation, with the involvement of local economic development organisations, including local authorities. This will encourage the growth of indigenous SMEs, particularly at local level.
Has it taken on board the tremendous potential for growth in tourism? Can the Minister further assure us that the new organisation will not be bogged down in red tape, that the application forms for support from the new agency will be simpler, and that the agency will be of immediate help to those who are seeking to set up or to expand a business?

Sir Reg Empey: I am glad to see that the Member is here, and in good form, after his late night yesterday. As the Member suggested, the size differential was one of the reasons for change. The problems of a business are very often the same, irrespective of its size. Major growth is taking place in small and medium-sized enterprises, while the big battleship companies, which employ thousands, are few and far between. It does not make any difference whether you employ 49 people or 51.
There have also been overlaps — some companies with more than 50 employees are under LEDU’s wing, while others with fewer than 50 employees are under the IDB’s wing. That has been a source of confusion. In addition, certain policies have been delivered in different ways by different organisations.
I am trying to get rid of banding and to treat the problems of small businesses and larger businesses in the same way, although issues of scale prevail.
With regard to red tape, a review was carried out of the forms, and a number were reduced. I started a re-examination in my Department within the last two months. I am looking at every piece of paper that is issued by each division in every organisation. I want to ensure that every piece of paper is essential. If it is not, we will try to get rid of it.

Mr Danny Kennedy: I welcome the Minister’s announcement. Will he consider giving local authorities a more active role? I want to emphasise to him the need for localised offices to represent the new agency so that local entrepreneurs can, at first hand, avail of the important services that will be available. I think, in particular, of the needs of my constituency and of Newry and Armagh, which would both be very important venues for such an agency.

Sir Reg Empey: I understand that Newry and Armagh are important venues for the Member, and I am very pleased to see that the south-east is at least trying to compete with the north-west. On a serious note, I said that there will be a regional dimension to this organisation’s work, and the precise nature of that is yet to be determined, but I am sure that the Member will have more to say to me about that on another occasion.
There is significant potential for a more active role for local authorities. I believe very strongly in local economic development, as the Member knows. However, as I said in response to Mr Poots, the attempt to accelerate the work of local authorities is, to some extent, constrained by the present scale of some of the local authorities. I would like to see some reorganisation, and I see no reason for that to take four years. I hope that it will happen much sooner. A restructured local government with a clearer view of what local authorities should be doing would deliver. Local authorities have proved that, if given responsibility, they can deliver.
I assure the Member that that will be one of our priorities.
(Mr Speaker in the Chair)

Mr Pat Doherty: Go raibh maith agat, a Cheann Comhairle. Thank you, Mr Speaker, for allowing me this opportunity to wish the Minister, his family and his entire Department a Happy Christmas and a good New Year. I am looking forward very much to the autumn of next year when I will welcome him to West Tyrone to open the regional office there.

Sir Reg Empey: It is tempting to say "No comment," but I think — [Interruption]
I know who is at my back, Mr Speaker. I will not fall into the trap that has been set for me. It is safe to say that the Member may be seeing me sooner than that, if things go according to plan tomorrow.
I do take the regional dimension to this extremely seriously; perhaps I have been taking it even more seriously as the morning has gone on. Perhaps it was unwise even to suggest it, but it will have to have a regional dimension — of that there is no doubt. I thank Members for their contributions.

Assembly Business

Mr Speaker: The Second Stage of the Electronic Communications Bill has been withdrawn.

Dogs (Amendment) Bill: Final Stage

Ms Brid Rodgers: I beg to move
That the Dogs (Amendment) Bill (NIA 7/99) do now pass.
For the benefit of Members I shall summarise why the Bill was introduced and its main provisions.
Under existing legislation, courts and resident magistrates have no discretion in dealing with a dog that has attacked a person or has worried livestock. They must order that the dog be destroyed. There are relatively few cases each year where destruction orders are made; there were 56 last year. However, I consider it appropriate that courts and resident magistrates should have some discretion in determining the fate of a dog. The major change proposed is that rather than order the destruction of a dog, a court may opt to make an order requiring certain measures, such as muzzling or confinement, to be taken to prevent the dog from being a danger to the public and livestock.
Mr Peter Robinson was concerned that this did not go far enough, in that it did not cater for special circumstances in which a court might wish to absolve the dog instead of applying restrictive measures. Consequently, he moved an amendment at Further Consideration Stage which the Assembly accepted and which, in effect, gives a court the discretion not to apply restrictive measures if it is satisfied that exceptional mitigating factors exist. A court will, therefore, have the widest possible discretion.
The second change relates to dangerous dogs. At present, when a person is convicted of an offence relating to a dangerous dog, the court must make an order for the destruction of the dog. The Bill will give the courts the discretion not to order the destruction of the dog if they are satisfied that it will not be a danger to the public.
The third change relates to the powers of resident magistrates in connection with the seizure of dogs. Under the Bill, a resident magistrate must still order the destruction of a dangerous dog, but the Bill, if passed, will allow a person to apply for a certificate of exemption from the requirement to have the dog destroyed. The conditions of this certificate must be complied with within two months of the date of the order. In relation to all other seized dogs, the Bill proposes that a resident magistrate should have discretion not to order the destruction of such a dog, if he is satisfied that it is not a danger to the public.
Finally, the Bill also allows for a reconsideration of cases where it has been ordered that a dog be destroyed but where the destruction has not taken place.
I am grateful to the Members who contributed to the debate on the Bill. I also wish to express my thanks to the Chairman and members of the Agriculture and Rural Development Committee who carried out detailed scrutiny of the Bill and who afforded my officials the opportunity to give evidence to it.

Mr Peter Robinson: The Bill has been improved by the Assembly’s acceptance of the amendment. May I say to the Minister that since my election to the House of Commons in 1979, I have probably proposed over 100 amendments at Westminster. Never once did I succeed in having an amendment accepted, so I welcome the fact that the duck has been broken by the Minister and the Assembly’s accepting the amendment at Further Consideration Stage.
From a local government point of view, I will closely monitor several other elements to which the Minister responded in writing to see how they work out in practice. If further amendments are necessary, I will be happy to let the Minister know the reactions of the people who have to enforce the legislation that this House will pass.

Ms Brid Rodgers: I welcome the Member’s comments. I am pleased that these new structures have not only allowed us to bring this Bill forward, but have also allowed MrPRobinson to break new ground. I hope he recognises that his Northern Ireland Colleagues perhaps have a more open mind and are more flexible than his Westminster Colleagues. That is also a bonus.
Question put and agreed to.
Resolved:
That the Dogs (Amendment) Bill (NIA 7/99) do now pass.

Salary of Comptroller and Auditor General

Mr John Dallat: I beg to move
That the annual salary of the Comptroller and Auditor General shall be increased to £100,028 with effect from 20 December 2000.
As this is the season of goodwill, I hope we will not have too many problems with the motion.
Legislation requires an Assembly motion to change the Comptroller and Auditor General’s salary. Under the terms of his appointment he was due an increase from 1 April 2000. I have agreed with the Minister of Finance and Personnel that it is appropriate for me as Chairperson of the Audit Committee to move this motion in the light of my Committee’s important role in the examination of the expenses and work of the Comptroller and Auditor General. The Audit Committee has considered the background to the amount stipulated and recommends it to the Assembly.
I will explain the reasoning behind this. If amendments proposed to the Government Resources and Accounting Bill are passed, it will further increase the Comptroller and Auditor General’s ability to follow public money wherever it goes in Northern Ireland on the Assembly’s behalf. This would increase his workload and responsibility, an issue which my Committee will be reporting on in its forthcoming report to the Assembly.
The Comptroller and Auditor General is an officer of the Assembly and plays a vital role in providing it with independent assurance, information, advice and proper accounting for the assets and liabilities of Northern Ireland Departments, as well as other public expenditure. He is required by statute to examine and certify the accounts of all Northern Ireland Government Departments and a wide range of other public sector bodies, including Executive agencies. He also audits several central Government accounts by agreement with the Department of Finance and Personnel and the bodies concerned and, on behalf of the National Audit Office, the accounts of the NIO and the Northern Ireland Court Service. He also reports to the Assembly on value for money, and the economy, efficiency and effectiveness of the use of resources, which makes Departments accountable to the Assembly for the money they receive from the public purse.
My Committee has seen at first hand the commitment and dedication of the Comptroller and Auditor General and the staff of the Northern Ireland Audit Office in carrying out these tasks. I therefore commend the motion to the House.

Mr Speaker: There have been no requests from Members to address this matter.
Question put and agreed to.
Resolved:
That the annual salary of the Comptroller and Auditor General shall be increased to £100,028 with effect from 20 December 2000.

Assembly Members’ Allowances Determination

Rev Robert Coulter: I beg to move
That the Northern Ireland Assembly (Members’ Allowances) Determination 2000 (NIA 26/00) be approved.
Before getting into the detail of the allowances determination, Members may find it helpful if I set out the background to the Determinations and to the one that the Assembly will consider shortly.
In February 1999, the Assembly Commission presented its first report to the Assembly, which established the basis for the Assembly estimates of £36 million. After a debate, the Assembly passed the following resolution:
"That this Assembly will accept the recommendations of the Senior Salaries Review Body in respect of the salaries and allowances for Ministers and Members."
— [Official Report, Vol 12, No 3, p125].
The Assembly Commission has remained faithful to that principle during the passage of three Bills dealing with Members’ pensions, financial assistance to political parties, severance allowances to Members, and the 1999 Determinations of salaries and allowances.
The Commission has continued to follow the recommendation of the Senior Salaries Review Body (SSRB) that the allowances Determination should be uprated by the increase in the retail price index for the period 1999-2000, calculated at 2·6%.
I will now deal with each allowance as I go through each paragraph of the schedule to the Determination. Paragraph 1 deals with travel allowances. The rate for mileage under 20,000 miles has been increased from 51·2 pence to 52·5 pence per mile, with the 20,000-plus miles rate increasing from 23·6 pence to 24·2 pence per mile. The rate for mileage in a hired car also increases from 51·2 pence to 52·5 pence per mile. For those hardy souls who travel by bike, the rate per mile increases from 6·5 pence to 6·7 pence per mile. I am sure that will be welcomed by them all.
Paragraph 2 covers subsistence rates. The rate for hotels inside London is increased to a maximum of £150 per night, with a maximum of £100 per night elsewhere in the United Kingdom. Those changes reflect the difficulty of finding suitable accommodation at the present rates of £100 and £80 respectively. Outside the UK, the provision in this Determination has been set at a maximum of £200 per day on a full-board basis. That provision removes the need for reference to outdated Foreign and Commonwealth Office (FCO) rates, which caused Members travelling abroad some confusion. However, the Finance Office will use up-to-date FCO rates as a guide to expected outlay. There is also an allowance of £5 for out-of-pocket expenses.
Paragraph 3 of the Determination adds 2·6% to the office costs allowance, an increase from £34,850 to £35,756 per year. Many Members will welcome that increase, modest though it may be.
The disability allowance remains unchanged. However, for the purpose of clarity, the word "disability" has been defined in paragraph4 and "session" has been redefined as a year.
Recall expenses remain the same, and paragraph5 refers to this. In paragraph6, travel allowance for employees remains as before, although the opportunity has been taken to define "Inland Revenue rates." Paragraph7 does not change previous arrangements for staff pensions and redundancies, although the wording has been changed slightly to increase clarity of expression.
The rules on temporary secretarial allowance in paragraph8 have been radically altered. Previously, that allowance was payable only after office cost allowance had been exhausted. The new provisions separate those two allowances. A temporary secretarial allowance can now be paid irrespective of the position in regard to office cost allowance. That is in line with new arrangements at Westminster.
Paragraph9 is new. It allows for the annual uprating of certain allowances in the Determination according to the change in the retail prices index over the previous year, as recommended by the Senior Salaries Review Body (SSRB). This provision obviates the need for an allowance Determination to be brought before the Assembly annually. More importantly, it will allow Members to arrange for the uprating of the wages of their support staff at the beginning of the financial year.
Paragraph10 is also new, although it contains little that is different. It merely defines some of the terms used in the Determination, many of which appeared as sub-paragraphs in the 1999 Determination. It is proposed that with the agreement of the Assembly — and I stress that — the provisions of this Determination will take effect from 29May2000, which was the date of the reinstatement of the Assembly following suspension. Obviously, we cannot legislate for the period of suspension.
The Commission is aware that there is some discomfort with the principle of backdating rises in allowances and salaries. However, I remind Members that the Commission is only proposing to put in place the same arrangements as exist in Westminster, Scotland and Wales: a 2·6% uprating of allowances with effect from 1April2000. Many Members have already introduced wage increases for their staff. These Members will experience financial difficulties if the rise in allowances is not backdated to the beginning of the financial year. I commend the allowances Determination to the Assembly.

Mr Speaker: There is one amendment on the Marshalled List, standing in the name of MrConorMurphy.

Mr Conor Murphy: Go raibh maith agat, a Cheann Comhairle. I beg to move the following amendment: At the end add
"subject to the date in paragraph1(5) being amended to 31March2001".
This amendment is intended to be consistent with the other amendment that we introduced, which, apparently, others have come to support. Its purpose is to ensure that this comes into effect on 31March. I sympathise with those who work in our offices because I am aware of the amount of work staff in my own office cover. However, I doubt Rev Robert Coulter’s assertion that Members are in financial difficulties over this.
This Assembly has a duty. In the debate yesterday, many impassioned arguments were made on behalf of those who face hefty rates bills over the coming years. We have a duty to set an example in our dealings with our own finances. If we backdate our current allowances, which will include the travel allowance, Members will be remunerated for finances lost between 29 May and the present.
The public scrutinises our actions — that is both appropriate and welcome — and we have a duty to it. We have a duty to show that we are restrictive in awarding finances to ourselves. This amendment is consistent with the previous amendment regarding salaries. I urge the Assembly to support this amendment.

Mr Speaker: There have been no further requests to speak.
Question put
The Assembly divided: Ayes 15; Noes 52.
Ayes
Bairbre de Brún, Pat Doherty, Michelle Gildernew, John Kelly, Alex Maskey, Barry McElduff, Gerry McHugh, Mitchel McLaughlin, Pat McNamee, Francie Molloy, Conor Murphy, Mick Murphy, Mary Nelis, Dara O’Hagan, Sue Ramsey.
Noes
Ian Adamson, Alex Attwood, Roy Beggs, Billy Bell, Paul Berry, P J Bradley, Joe Byrne, Mervyn Carrick, Seamus Close, Wilson Clyde, Robert Coulter, Annie Courtney, John Dallat, Nigel Dodds, Reg Empey, David Ervine, John Fee, David Ford, Tommy Gallagher, Oliver Gibson, John Gorman, Carmel Hanna, Denis Haughey, Joe Hendron, David Hilditch, Derek Hussey, Gardiner Kane, Danny Kennedy, Patricia Lewsley, Alban Maginness, Kieran McCarthy, David McClarty, Donovan McClelland, William McCrea, Alasdair McDonnell, Alan McFarland, Eugene McMenamin, Monica McWilliams, Jane Morrice, Sean Neeson, Danny O’Connor, Eamonn ONeill, Edwin Poots, Ken Robinson, Mark Robinson, Peter Robinson, Brid Rodgers, George Savage, Jim Shannon, John Tierney, Jim Wells, Jim Wilson.
Question accordingly negatived.
Main Question put and agreed to.
Resolved:
That the Northern Ireland Assembly (Members’ Allowances) Determination 2000 (NIA 26/00) be approved.

Assembly Members’ Salaries Determination

Rev Robert Coulter: I beg to move
That the Northern Ireland Assembly (Members’ Salaries) Determination 2000 (NIA 27/00) be approved.
My Colleague, MrFee, when he presented last year’s salary Determination, referred to his role as a "poisoned chalice". I hope that I will not have to lift such a chalice on this occasion, and I assure the House that I will be abstaining from any strong or spirited beverages.
I do not intend to make a lengthy preamble, but I will respond to some of the recent press coverage on this issue which, at best, has been grossly inaccurate. The proposed rise of 2·9% in salaries is below and not, as reported, above the rate of inflation, which is 3·2%. Today, the Assembly is not voting for a Members’ pay rise above the increases to be awarded to their support staff. It is for individual Members as employers to agree pay rises for their own staff. I am confident that all Members will act fairly on this issue.
Furthermore, the Assembly is not passing the task of determining Members’ salaries over to an independent body. Under section47(7) of the Northern Ireland Act 1998, the Assembly may not delegate the function of making a Determination on salaries and allowances.
The Commission is proposing in paragraph 3 of the salaries Determination that salaries be uprated annually by a percentage rise recommended by the Senior Salaries Review Body (SSRB) for the senior Civil Service pay bands. It will always be in the Assembly’s gift to vote on different arrangements for the Determination of Members’ salaries and allowances. However, as with the allowances Determination, the salaries Determination is designed to keep in line with SSRB recommendations and to achieve parity with arrangements in Westminster, Scotland and Wales.
The SSRB recommended that Assembly salaries should be uprated each year, in line with the average movement in the nine senior Civil Service pay bands below that of permanent secretary. For 2000-01, the increase is 2·9%, which compares favourably with the current inflation rate of 3·2% and an average rise in public-sector pay levels of 3·4%.
As I have already said, the Determination provides at paragraph 3 for an annual uprating of salaries, so that there is no requirement to present salaries Determinations on an annual basis. Certain minor flaws in the 1999 Determination, with regard to dual- and triple-mandate Members, have been corrected in this new Determination. The Commission has recommended that the new salary should take effect from 29 May 2000, the date of the reinstatement of the Assembly following suspension.
I note from the amendments put down by several Members that retrospection is a matter of concern. In bringing forward this Determination, the Commission is trying to ensure parity with other United Kingdom legislatures, where pay rises of 2·9% took effect from 1 April 2000.
I commend the salaries Determination to the Assembly.

Mr Speaker: Three amendments have been submitted, and I have selected all of them. They all address the date of implementation, but have different dates from that in the motion. I intend to deal with them in chronological order.
Each Member who has tabled an amendment will be asked if he wishes to move it. When all such Members have spoken, a debate may ensue if other Members wish to speak. Then, as usual, in reverse order, each Member who has moved an amendment will be given an opportunity to wind up. The mover of the motion will then wind up, and we will vote on the amendments in chronological order.
If an amendment is taken — if, therefore, it is made by the Assembly — the subsequent amendments will fall, because those amendments, if passed, would not make sense. They would simply be wrecking amendments. They would simply add dates. If the first amendment is made, the other two amendments fall; if the first one falls and the second amendment is made, then the third one falls; if the first two amendments fall, the third amendment may be made, and so on.
If Members are clear, as I trust they are, on a matter of such interest to them, I will take the amendments now in chronological order.

Mr David Ford: I beg to move the following amendment: At the end add
"subject to the date in paragraph 1(4) being amended to 19 December 2000".
I concur with many of the remarks made by Mr Coulter on behalf of the Commission. I am pleased that even the British Broadcasting Corporation now seems to have recognised that the Commission is recommending only that which was recommended by the SSRB, and that it is a rate of increase below that of inflation.
There is a wider recognition by the media that Members are starting to do the job for which they were elected. However, it would be naive and a tad optimistic to suggest that the people of Northern Ireland think that Members are fulfilling the responsibilities that they were elected to do. That is why Mr Close and myself tabled the amendment. I make no apology for supporting much of the Determination.
In future, Members will no longer be directly involved in this haggling over money, and salaries will be linked, like those of the other authorities in the United Kingdom, to the public-sector pay scale. This is an appropriate way of saying that Members are seeking to distance themselves from the matter as much as possible. However, Members have to face up to the decision that must be taken today.
The people of Northern Ireland do not believe that Members have yet done the work that they are here to do, although they might accept that Members are starting to do it, having heard the long and detailed Budget debate. There is still much to be done on such issues as the Programme for Government and the playing of a full role in new legislation. This morning Members once again failed to advance one Bill, so we are still not fulfilling all that we should be.
That is why the Alliance Party believes that it is inappropriate for the pay increase to be backdated to 29 May. It should become effective from today because we are taking the decision today, and we are seen to be taking our responsibilities from this time.
I would have no difficulty with the concept of applying the 1 January date, but I would have some difficulty in suggesting that we take the pay rise on 31 March, given that Members are due next year’s rise on 1 April. Two annual rises in two days would be a bit much for anybody to stomach.
The amendment says that we should take our pay rise from today on the basis of independent settling and not on our own decisions. I ask Members to support it.

Mr Derek Hussey: I beg not to move the amendment standing in my name.

Mr Conor Murphy: I beg to move the following amendment: At the end add
"subject to the date in paragraph 1(4) being amended to 31 March 2001".
Go raibh maith agat, a Cheann Comhairle. It appears that Mr Ford’s stomach has become more delicate since the Alliance Party accepted and supported the backdating part of this proposal at the Commission. He has suddenly developed a distaste for backpayments.
It was not possible to amend the date to any later than 31 March because the report applied to this financial year. Therefore that was the furthest date that could be provided.
Since the Assembly Commission voted on this issue and since Friday, when the media began to shine the spotlight on it, the ghosts of Christmas appear to have visited some of the parties and that is evident from some of the amendments. The SDLP, UUP and Alliance Party voted for what is contained in the motion, but since the spotlight has been shone on it —

Mr David Ford: Does the Member accept that Commission members do not have a party role? The decision that they make has no reference to their Colleagues.

Mr Conor Murphy: That argument occurred before when it was alleged that a Sinn Féin Member had voted in the shadow Commission, thereby linking Sinn Féin to that vote. Members cannot have it both ways. Either a party representative is representing his party on the Commission, or he is not. I am sure that representatives of the Alliance Party consult, as most party representatives do, with their party on matters of such importance.
Therefore I assume that the Alliance Party backed this matter in the Commission, and I did not hear from any members of the Alliance Party on Friday. Perhaps they were not listening to the media when this was debated. I did not hear any reticence about the proposals until this morning.
There is a similar case concerning the UUP. In the media on Friday a UUP Member tried to defend the backdating of the pre-Christmas lump sum that they were preparing to receive. Once again, we see the UUP moving to distance itself from the Christmas bonus.

Mr John Fee: It is grossly unfair to suggest that the members of the Commission act as party representatives, particularly when Mrs EBell represents all the smaller parties and, as far as is possible, consults all of them. The Commission makes its decisions under the Northern Ireland Act 1998 and under the direction of the Assembly. The Assembly has voted twice in the past to act in line with the SSRB. Today, Members can decide on these amendments, but the Commission was simply fulfilling its responsibility to the House.

Mr Conor Murphy: During the sitting of the Shadow Commission we informed the Member that we did not support the recommendations of the SSRB. He said that SinnFéin supported it in the Commission, but people cannot have it both ways. Either a party Member is identified with his party on the Commission, or not. I accept that the commissioners act on behalf of the whole Assembly, but if Members vote in the Commission to give themselves pre-Christmas lump sums, the parties cannot then attempt to distance themselves from it.
Members queued up yesterday to take pot-shots at SinnFéin over our proposed amendment to the Budget motion, and claimed that we had supported it in other forums. People cannot have it both ways. In effect, the lump sum proposed by the Commission would give Members a pre-Christmas bonus of between £500 and £1500. Even Jeffrey, in his "letter to Santa", which was subsequently plagiarised by the FirstMinister, would not have been so audacious in his request.
Sinn Féin has no difficulty with linking the salaries to annual increases that reflect inflation because that is a common trade union argument. We have argued that this should be the case for pensions, allowances and benefits. We do, however, have a difficulty with people proposing to give themselves a lump sum backdated to 29May.
Assembly Members are quite well paid, and we all accept that every elected representative has a difficult job and is entitled to an appropriate level of pay. Members should send out a strong signal by saying that they will forego the backdating of this pay and not accept any pre-Christmas pay rise. In effect, that is what MrFord’s amendment does. He scurried away from the backdating of the pay, but he is voting for a pre-Christmas pay rise. If we forego that by voting in favour of the 31March2001 option, we will send out a signal that the gravy train is not operating in the Assembly, contrary to the signal that has consistently been sent out since the Assembly began. The last time we debated the SSRB proposals, I said that if a substantial pay cut had been proposed, Members might not have been so willing to accept it. The same applies in this instance. We should reject the clause in the Assembly Commission’s recommendation that we backdate this to 29May. We should also reject the pre-Christmas pay rise proposed by MrFord, and we should accept the amendment and bring this report into effect from 31March.

Ms Jane Morrice: It has been useful to listen to the debate this morning and to take into consideration our opinion on this. We agree that there should be an annual upgrading of salaries and allowances in line with normal practices in any workplace. We accept that this matter has now been taken out of the Assembly’s hands and given to the SSRB. That was an important decision for the Assembly. The decision is made once and for all. We do not agree that it should be backdated; that is inappropriate. We agree that we should wait until the annual upgrading of salaries, as foreseen in this Determination; that is important.
Members will have heard mentioned the salaries of those who are "double jobbing" — that is the term we use to describe Members who sit in the Assembly and at Westminster. Paragraphs 2(1), 2(2) and 2(3) provide for the salaries of Assembly Members who are also Members of Parliament at Westminster and Strasbourg to be reduced to take account of this "double jobbing."
Mr Speaker, are you aware that the Disqualifications Act 2000 which has been passed in the House of Commons allows for Assembly Members to become TDs? Why is there no reference to the need for salaries to also be reduced in such cases, in the same way as for Members of Parliament or Members of the European Parliament? Can either the Assembly or the Commission do anything about that?

Mr Speaker: I should respond to that myself, since it is a matter of the authority and competence of the Assembly. The Member is right that in section 47(4) of the Northern Ireland Act 1998 provision is made for a reduction in salary if the Assembly Member is also a Member of either House of the Westminster Parliament or of the European Parliament and is receiving a salary for that. If he or she is a Member of the Oireachtas, there is no such provision for the Assembly salary to be reduced. If such a reduction were sought, section 47(4) of the 1998 Act would have to be amended to refer to membership of the Oireachtas, consequently the salaries Determination would have to include such a reference.
It is regrettable that since this anomaly arose from the Disqualification Act 2000 no opportunity was taken during the passing of that Bill to address the matter, the more so since the Assembly itself cannot legislate on the matter. It is a good example of why this Assembly should be consulted on any legislation that affects it, but it is not a matter that the Assembly itself can address. I hope that that clarifies the matter for both the Member and the House.

Mr Robert McCartney: I do not agree with the awarding or the acceptance of any pay increase. The amendment that comes nearest to my own view is that advanced by Sinn Féin. After the Act of Union in 1800, Lord Castlereagh said that he had purchased the fee simple of Irish political corruption. I wonder whether it has to be repurchased in every generation.
This Assembly has 108 Members to represent roughly 1·65 million people. The Scottish Parliament, which represents 5 million people, has 129. On a pro-rata basis with Northern Ireland, it would have over 300 Members. The Welsh Assembly has 60 Members and represents a population of just under 3 million. There can be no doubt, and very few people would argue, that some of the 108 Members — and that number was chosen specifically to include as many people from as many different parties as possible, some of them of questionable genealogy as far as democracy is concerned.
I have heard it said — I have not checked the figures — that at the date of the Assembly election, some 30 of the 108 Members who grace this Chamber were unemployed. How many Members of this Assembly can honestly put their hand on their heart and say that they were in receipt of a bigger salary than the £29,000 that was originally granted before this Assembly voted itself an increase of over 30% and brought it up to the current £39,000? Here this Assembly is arranging to increase its salary again.
The argument to which everybody has clung to justify this is that the Assembly is not actually fixing the amount.
However, the Assembly is agreeing and fixing the criteria by which that amount is measured. It is done on the basis of taking the average of the salaries of the nine fairly high-ranking civil servants beneath the rank of permanent secretary, and determining the percentage increase. In this case it is 2·9%. Having set the criteria for working out what one is going to get at a fairly high level, one then adopts the "holier than thou" attitude of saying, "Well, it is not us that is awarding it; it is being awarded by the SSRB." However, the SSRB decision is based upon criteria that have been approved by the Assembly.
The public are looking at this Assembly, and appreciating that the running of the Assembly and the 11 Departments — there were formerly six — is costing over £670 million this year and is budgeted for £750 million next year. That sum, which now includes 11 Departments, is coming out of the block grant — the block grant that provides money for the Departments of the Minister of Health, the Minister of Education and the Minister of the Environment. Everybody knows that, for example, the Health Department is grossly underfunded. Everybody knows that many of the buildings providing educational facilities for our children in Northern Ireland are grossly defective and need a great deal of capital investment.
I am not suggesting that the 2·9%, backdated, discounted or otherwise, will make a vast contribution to those Departments. However, it shows that the Assembly is conscious of the lack of money affecting many people in Northern Ireland. Some people are not having heart bypass operations, people who are having children in maternity facilities that really have very little to rejoice about, and children, particularly in rural areas, who are in school buildings that are really Victorian in their design and facilities. They will now say that Members of the Assembly, who have scarcely broken ground in delivering anything in Northern Ireland, are, for the second time in a year, voting themselves a substantial and significant salary increase.
I, for my part, have no great affection for this — [Interruption]. I am told that I do not need it. That might be right, but is the fact that one needs it a justification for taking it? That is the point.

Mr Sean Neeson: Which Committee is the Member on?

Mr Robert McCartney: I am not on any Committee, and I am coming to that point — [Interruption].
We have howls from the people who want the money.
Come on, howl. Howl for your salaries. Howl for your increases. Put down those who would question for a second that one should not fill one’s own pockets. That is democracy at work. That is the picture that Members are projecting to the people of Northern Ireland. It does not matter that Members howl, sneer or ask questions about which Committees I am on. Sticks and stones may break bones but words will certainly not hurt me. However, the words that Members use and the attitude that Members display on the television cameras will go out to the people of Northern Ireland, and they will be watching Members howling to fill their purses.

Prof Monica McWilliams: Does the member remember Holywood?

Mr Robert McCartney: I remember all about Holywood. To get back to the fundamental issue, I think that what this Assembly should do is say that we are entitled to this money according to the decisions and deliberations of the SSRB, but that entitlement does not justify acceptance. Members should say "Certainly not. We are not going to take this." Indeed, I question whether there should not be a moratorium on salaries for at least the next two years.
Would anybody be seriously hurt if he did not get his 2·9% this year and again next year? Would it not show a good example to the people who see enormous sums being spent on this place? Someone asked me the other day "If they vote this increase through, MrMcCartney, will you be taking it?" That is a very pertinent question. The answer is yes; I will be taking it. However, I will not be keeping it. If this is voted through — and I am entitled to any increase along with everyone else — it will be divided equally between the Belfast City Mission, StVincent dePaul and the Salvation Army. I think that at Christmas instead of Members voting themselves a big backdated bonus, as recommended by the Commission, they should be thinking about those who do not enjoy all the facilities and benefits that they do.
I am not speaking as a party politician; I am speaking as someone who, whatever committee he serves on, may from time to time serve the purpose of jogging the consciences of others who do.

Mr Alex Attwood: I want to make four or five points.
Mr McCartney says that people will draw conclusions about the Assembly based upon the salaries Determination which may go through today. If they do, those conclusions will be based upon a shallow premise. However, I think that people will look at yesterday’s debate and say that it was characterised by a voice from the Government, such as MrDurkan’s, and a voice close to the Government, such as Mr PRobinson’s. The quality of their contributions, and their statements on the future society that they want to construct, will have a greater affect on people’s conclusions about the Assembly than the vagaries of the salaries Determination on which we are about to vote.
Mr McCartney also told us that Irish political corruption is being repurchased this afternoon. Well, I draw two conclusions from that. Either we are cheap at the price — because the Determination proposed by the Alliance Party will amount to £380 between now and the end of this financial year — or the contention is evidently ludicrous. Mr McCartney makes some incredibly powerful contributions inside and outside this Chamber, and this contention is at odds with the quality of many of his previous contributions.
Mr McCartney also said that 30Members of the Assembly were unemployed before they came here. You move on to very dangerous territory when you bring that sort of argument on to the Floor of the Assembly. This is for two reasons: first you leave yourself vulnerable, and I know you did not mean this —

Mr Robert McCartney: Why would I say it if I did not mean it?

Mr Alex Attwood: Well, some people —

Mr Speaker: Order. May I request all Members to address their comments through the Chair.

Mr Alex Attwood: Some of the people who are watching and listening to this debate — which, as the Member rightly pointed out, deserves to be heard — may misinterpret what he said. They might believe that it echoes a past when people did not qualify because of their religion, gender, sexuality or class. Those politics do not have any place here. But more importantly, people who are unemployed have the same right to stand for political office as people who are employed.

Mr Robert McCartney: Will the Member give way?

Mr Alex Attwood: I will give way once I finish this point. They have an equal entitlement. On the other hand, to suggest that unemployed people who take up political office are in that office because of the money is demeaning to them and diminishes the contribution that they make to our society.

Mr Robert McCartney: The hon Member evidently did not understand the relevance of the point. The relevance of the point was in relation to the increases, and the point from which the increases were being given. If you were unemployed and are now on a salary of £39,000, whether you were fit to stand or not, is irrelevant. What is relevant is whether you need an increase on that at this stage.

Mr Alex Attwood: As politicians, we have a duty, and that duty should be based on principle. Principles inform the judgement that has been made by the Commission and, presumably, the amendment proposed by the Alliance Party. It is a valid principle to pay people what they are entitled to. There have been far too few examples of this having been done in the years of Tory misrule in this part of the island of Ireland and in Britain.
There is also the principle that when one makes an independent adjudication of what a politician, doctor or a nurse may be entitled to, it must be honoured. A time will come in this Chamber when we will have to make a judgement. Will we back a salary review recommendation for someone else in the public service? We will be tested and judged at that moment. However, by applying the principle to ourselves to uphold the independent assessment of what we are worth means that we will, in the future, apply a principle about what others are worth. That is why the amendment for the Alliance Party should be endorsed.

Mr Speaker: As there are no further requests to speak, I call Mr C Murphy to make his winding-up speech.

Mr Conor Murphy: From some of the impassioned defences made today, it appears that the light has been switched on in the shop, and people have been caught with their hands in the till.
I observed some of the parties before today’s debate started. There were some hurried consultations between the Ulster Unionist party, members of the Commission, who were obviously not representing their own party, but happened to belong to the SDLP, and the Alliance party about the amendments and what parties would and would not accept. The Ulster Unionists obviously decided that they could live with an extra 10 or 12 days of a pay rise, instead of going for 1 January and withdraw their amendment. Nobody was fit to enquire what Sinn Féin thought. We also had an amendment tabled, but no one asked what we thought or what they were interested in when coming to an arrangement with the others. There was, it appeared, a hurried coalition of interest between some of the parties that had previously supported the backdated pay rise, and which are now supporting the pre-Christmas pay rise. They have scurried away from the proposal for a pre-Christmas bonus.
The DUP has very little to say on this matter. They said yesterday that their hands were clean in all of this, and obviously they have decided to keep their hands clean again today. They will adopt that position. I have noticed that when there is a debate on salaries in this Chamber, their Front Bench is always empty. The DUP always appears to be able to distance itself by sitting further towards the back of the Chamber in the hope that somehow they will not be involved in the debate. They will, however, take the pay rise or whatever bonus comes along, but they will not get involved in the debate, so it will not be their fault.
We are faced with a choice. The Commission has proposed a pre-Christmas bonus for Members. Mr Ford’s amendment withdraws that but gives us a pre-Christmas pay rise. I think that we should support my amendment. It sends out a signal that we recognise that there is a great deal of hardship in this society, and that many face a very bleak Christmas. We have a responsibility to send such a signal to show that we will play our part by not giving ourselves a pre-Christmas bonus or a pre-Christmas pay rise. We must demonstrate that we have a responsibility to those people, and that we will accept that responsibility.

Mr Seamus Close: I do not intend to deal in any depth with our amendment. The case has been made succinctly by my Colleague, Mr Ford.
It is necessary to respond to some of the other Members’ comments. The word "principle" has been bandied around, and I use that term deliberately. The labourer being worth his dues has been well recognised, and it is fitting for the Northern Ireland Assembly and its Members to accept an increase. We had difficulty in backdating it for obvious reasons. The Assembly was not fully functioning at that time. However, it is right that the appropriate increase, which was due some months ago, should be paid as and from now. I make no apology for that. We are following the standards of the SSRB. I find it interesting that Sinn Féin is making a big issue about a pre-Christmas increase. It has also attempted to mislead the public by deliberately using the bonus figures — £500 or £1,500, or whatever — while fully conscious of the fact that there is no bonus at all if the pay increase takes effect from today. That was an attempt to mislead. I also find it ironic that in rejecting a pre-Christmas —

Mr Alex Maskey: Does the Member accept that the pay rise referred to by Mr C Murphy represents a scale comprising Members who do not hold office right through to Ministers? That ranges from £500 to £1,500, even before the various allowances are counted. The figures cannot be ignored. They are presented by the Assembly Commission, of which the Alliance Party is a member, and which it supported.

Mr Seamus Close: I apologise if I misunderstood Mr C Murphy’s comments. I understood that he was referring to "bonus", and that he deliberately used the word "bonus". A bonus is over and above a pay increase. A bonus entails some degree of backdating, and that is what I understood him to say. If that is the case, I stand by my original comments.
I find it interesting that Sinn Féin rejects a pre-Christmas increase but is anxious to have a pre-Easter "rising" increase. Could that be coincidence? I wonder. I also find it interesting that there may be some pangs of guilt emanating from Sinn Féin, following what it did yesterday — crying about the poor people and needs, et cetera, yet happily going into the Lobbies and supporting an 8% increase in the regional rate.

Mr Conor Murphy: The Member will know, if he was listening earlier, that I asserted — and the Speaker nodded in assent — that this could not have been done beyond the end of this financial year. Therefore the date was not to ensure a pre-Easter "rising" pay increase. I am not sure on what date Easter falls next year, but this was the latest date that we could give for these proposals. I made that point at the start, and it was acknowledged by the Speaker.
In relation to yesterday, if the Member was so exercised about the rise in the regional rate, why did he not bother to get in early enough to table an amendment to the motion.

Mr Seamus Close: We will not rehearse those arguments again. The reason my party did not table an amendment, and subsequently voted against the 8% increase, has been well examined. It cannot be denied that the Member is proposing a pre-Easter increase.
Mr McCartney began his comments by complaining about there being 108 Members. Whether he likes it or not, those Members are here to fill what was referred to as a democratic deficit; to try to bring proper accountable government to the people; and to represent the people of Northern Ireland through the appropriate Departments. Any member of the public would accept that and would recognise the import of the 10 Departments and their respective statutory scrutiny Committees which, I believe, are doing a reasonable job.

Mr Robert McCartney: Does the Member accept that the number of Departments was determined not by —

Mr Speaker: Order. I must intervene at this point, because the debate is moving from the salaries Determination to questions about the fundamental basis upon which the Assembly is set. I must call the Member who is speaking, and the Member who intervened, back to the salaries Determination.

Mr Seamus Close: I apologise. Perhaps, in taking other Members’ points, which are off the subject, I am being too charitable.
It is good practice, not only in public life but in general, to keep charitable acts to oneself. One should not use a public platform from which to extol "how great thou art".

Rev Robert Coulter: As far as the Commission is concerned, we have carried out our statutory responsibility by bringing forward the salaries Determination. If the Assembly decides to amend the date on which the Determination will have effect, the Commission will be happy to concur.
Question,
Main question, as amended, put and agreed to.
Resolved:
That the Northern Ireland Assembly (Members’ Salaries) Determination 2000 (NIA 27/00) be approved subject to the date in paragraph 1(4) being amended to 19 December 2000.
Adjourned at 1.55 pm.